fixed fees

The idea of fixed trial costs for the advocate (usually counsel) was well established before the extension of the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime. In the fast track, there were fixed amounts for “an advocate for preparing for and appearing at the trial”. Actual “appearance” was therefore required. Nothing would be recovered if the claim settled […]

The latest amendments to the civil procedure rules have now been published: The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2024 The 163rd Practice Direction (PD) Update The majority of changes come into force on 6 April 2024. There is no amendment to cure the defective transitional provisions relating to Fixed Recoverable Costs because the Civil Procedure Rule

Does the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs enable defendants to recover their costs if a matter settles pre-issue? There are certainly a number of commentators who have suggested that this is indeed the case. If correct, this would mean that the mere act of sending a letter of claim might trigger an entitlement for the

Part VII of CPR 45 is headed: “VII FIXED COSTS IN THE INTERMEDIATE TRACK” CPR 45.50(1): “For as long as the case is not allocated to the multi-track, the only costs allowed in any claim which would normally be or is allocated to the intermediate track are (a) the fixed costs in Table 14 …” Table 14

CPR 45.13 allows the court to penalise a party who is found to have behaved unreasonably by reducing their costs by 50% if the unreasonable party is the receiving party or increasing the other party’s costs by 50% if the unreasonable party is the paying party. The rule does not, as it might, require the

Traditionally, a party in whose favour a costs order was made could seek those costs on the indemnity basis where the other party had behaved unreasonably during the litigation. In fixed costs matters, a party could seek to escape the fixed costs regime by showing there were “’exceptional circumstances”, which would most commonly be unreasonable

An earlier post looked at the Fixed Recoverable Costs for defendants being based on the “the amount specified in the claim form, without taking into account any deduction for contributory negligence, but excluding – (i) any amount not in dispute; (ii) interest; or (iii) costs” (CPR 45.6(2) and (3)). What about where the claim form

The extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs sets the level of recoverable costs for both claimants and defendants. Where the claimant wins, the claimant’s costs are set by reference to the damages as agreed/awarded (see CPR 45.45(1)(a)(iv) and CPR 45.50(2)(b)(iv)). It is the settlement value which is determinative. The position is very different when the defendant

There is no doubt that the rules allow a court on detailed assessment to limit a party’s recoverable costs to those that would have been applicable to a particular track even if the matter settled pre-allocation. That is what CPR 46.13(3) expressly provides for: “Where the court is assessing costs on the standard basis of

One of the likely future battlegrounds arising from the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs is the issue of what complexity band a matter should be assigned to. The natural assumption is that claimants will seek to have matters assigned to higher complexity bands (where the recoverable costs will be higher), whereas defendants will seek to