In Sellers v Simpkins [2023] EWHC 3296 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker considered the costs recoverable by a solicitor when their client terminates their CFA.
Between them our team have a wealth of experience. Call us on 0845 160 9595.
In Sellers v Simpkins [2023] EWHC 3296 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker considered the costs recoverable by a solicitor when their client terminates their CFA.
In Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club & Ors [2023] EWHC 2923 (CH) Mr Justice Mellor considered three issues relevant to costs whether a deduction should be made to the successful parties’ costs; the making of an interim payment, and whether a consequentials hearing should be included in the costs budget, or assessed separately.
Nicholas Lee of Paragon Costs Solutions and James Wibberley of Guildhall Chambers were instructed to represent the Defendant in these costs proceedings.
From 1 November 2022 to 28 April 2023, a pilot was in place for the use of electronic bills in Court of Protection (COP) claims. The trial was a marked success, resulting in the continuation of these bills being accepted by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) moving forwards.
In the matter of Briley & Ors v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust & Ors [2023] EWHC 1470 (SCCO), the recoverability of attending a pre-inquest review was considered.
In Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Pipings Systems Ltd, the Court considered the validity of a Part 36 offer made and whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the claim.
Wishing you a disproportionately Happy Festive break (on the standard basis) and a Happy New Year (without prejudice save as to costs). This offer is open for acceptance for 21 days (the “relevant period”).
Simpsons (Preston) Ltd & Anor v MS Amlin Underwriting Ltd [2023] EWHC 1370 (Comm) and the variation of costs budgets when the issue is self-imposed
IEH v Powell [2023] EWHC 1037 and the late acceptance of a Part 36 offer when the Claimant is a child suffering with brain damage.
The dangers of unjustified allegations within a Letter of Claim
In the matter of Brierley v Outo & Ors, Costs Judge Nagalingam gave consideration to the paying parties’ application that the receiving party’s Bill of Costs should be redrawn as one of the fee earners named did not have the necessary years of experience.
The differences between a summary assessment on the standard basis and a solicitor/client assessment on the indemnity basis
The matter of Simon v Simon & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1048 concerns a Court of Appeal decision regarding the function of a litigation loan provider in divorce proceedings.
The matter of Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB) concerned a claim for assault, battery and misfeasance in public office. The Defendant’s officers had tasered the Claimant, causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head.
With the FRC changes, a further track has been created, known as the intermediate track. Claims valued between £25,000 - £100,000 will now usually be allocated to the Intermediate Track, provided that their complexity makes them unsuitable for the Fast Track. In the event the claim is particularly complex, the Court are able to allocate the claim to the Multi-Track, which means the FRC regime will not apply.
In Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation LLP [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO) Costs, Master Leonard found that the bills raised to the client were interim, not statutory bills and so all could be open to assessment.
This is a court of appeal decision, dismissing the appeal of a firm of solicitors who had been instructed under an unenforceable CFA.
The appellants were a firm of Solicitors, Volterra Fietta, who the respondents engaged to advise in relation to an investment treaty arbitration claim.
There is no requirement to have informed consent in the Solicitors Act or in the Solicitors Conduct Rules as a pre-condition of an interim bill.
However, permission was granted to appeal in respect of the issue of whether the Costs Judge was right to bar the consumer protection grounds on the res judicata grounds (issue estoppel, waiver and abuse of process).
Micula and others v Romania [2023] UKSC 2018/0177 (23 May 2023) Paragon Costs were instructed on behalf of the Paying Party, Romania. Jamie Carpenter KC was instructed to represent Romania at the hearing. Romania, the Appellant/Cross-Respondent was...
King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) Background Mr Justice Jacobs refused to allow a wasted costs application to pass stage one of the test outlined in the CPR Practice Direction 46, Para 5.5 as the issues were too complex and the costs were...
What is Changing on 6 April 2023? Old Rule CPR 44.14(1)- “…orders for costs made against a claimant may be enforced without the permission of the court but only to the extent that the aggregate amount in money terms of such orders does not...
Section 70 of The Solicitors Act is clear about the timescales in which a statute invoice can be disputed by a client. Once one year has passed from the delivery of the bill the court will only make an order for assessment if there are special circumstances....
TMO Renewables Ltd v Yeo & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1409 Background & Issue This case arises from a claim in which the Defendants were found to have acted in breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Claimant company (TMO Renewables Ltd) and had done...
Costs Budgeting; the balancing act between the proportionality of a budget and the reasonableness of its constituent parts Two notable decisions on costs budgeting have recently been provided by the Courts. The first of these matters is Associated...
The Professional Deputies Forum (PDF) has funded an oral hearing in the SCCO, which dealt with the time spent delegating in Court of Protection bills of costs. The hearing related to a Lanyon Bowdler bill of costs where time spent delegating to junior fee...
Paragon Costs Solutions recognised as a leader by prestigious legal directories Legal costs specialist Paragon Costs Solutions has become the only South West-based firm of its kind to be recommended by the prestigious Legal 500 directory of UK-wide...
Belsner & Karatysz – a warning for both solicitors and checkmylegalfees.com on low cost portal cases The Court of Appeal decision in Belsner v Cam Legal Services [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 , would certainly be classed as a ‘win’ for the...
Mathieu v Hinds & Aviva: 60% Reduction in the Claimant’s Costs due to Failure to Beat a Calderbank Offer Mathieu v Hunds & Aviva [2022] EWHC 1624 (QB) Background The matter involved a personal injury claim for damages, arising out of a...
Kelly v Ralli Ltd [2022] EWHC B5 (Costs) Background The Claimant instructed the Defendant in respect of a personal injury claim. That claim concluded in 2019, at which point the Defendant's registered office was at Jackson House in Sale. However, on...
Tudor v (1) Dean & GCOL Limited – Detailed Assessment of Costs – Court Strikes Out Defendant’s Points of Dispute & Approves Good Reason to Depart from An Approved Costs Budget Clarke Willmott acted for the Petitioner Mr Tudor...
I have long held the view that the authorities support the ability to recover interest on a disbursement funding agreement. Of course, this is subject to the Court’s very wide discretion at CPR 44.2. This appears to be a view supported by Regional...
Moran v Smith (Bristol County Court, Deputy District Judge Napier, 17/12/2021) Paragon Costs were instructed on behalf of the Defendant (the receiving party). Unusually, a Provisional Assessment was undertaken in circumstances where the costs claimed...
Part 36: A Defendant may invoke the provisions of Part 36 as a Claimant if the offer is clear and there is a genuine counterclaim The Huntsworth Wine Company Limited v London City Bond Limited [2022] EWHC 97 (Comm) Background The Huntsworth...
ABA v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2022] EWHC B4 (Costs) Claim Background The Claimant issued a clinical negligence claim on 22 December 2017. Master Cook made an order providing for liability and causation to be...
The decision in European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Ltd v Treon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2866 (Ch) is a stark reminder to successful parties that winning does not necessarily mean an award of costs; especially where there are substantial conduct issues. ...
Ensure you are Qualified to Comment on the Issues at Hand The matter of Robinson v Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust & Dr Mercier (County Court at Liverpool, 9 September 2021) concerned a dental negligence claim. Dr Chris Mercier was instructed...
In Crompton v Meadowcroft (Costs) – 2021 DDJ Ayers was asked to decide whether fixed costs would apply in a matter which had exited the portal but settled before it was allocated to the multi-track. This was an RTA claim which was submitted to the...
Success at Detailed Assessment does not automatically mean entitlement to all costs of the assessment itself. The Claimant’s bill of costs in Milbrooke Construction Ltd v Jones [2021] EWHC B20 (Costs) was reduced by such a significant level that...
Claimants unable to recover the costs of the counterclaim where they did not file a revised budget. In Bhat & Anor v Patel & Anor [2021] EWHC 2960 (Ch) (see judgment here ), Mrs Justice Fancourt found that where the claimants had not filed a...
Successful defendants deprived of 25% of their costs due to dishonesty.
Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC [2021] EWHC 2607 Mrs Justice Steyn DBE, siting with Master Brown, allowed an appeal to a decision of Master Nagalingam on the basis that the signatory on the bill certificate was not...
Raydens Ltd v Cole [2021] EWHC B14 (Costs) Background The claimant solicitors acted for the defendant in protracted matrimonial proceedings between November 2013 and September 2018. The defendant’s husband in the proceedings were ordered...
Appeal Process – Practice Note CPR 52 and practice direction 52A to 52E cover the appeal process in the civil division of the Court of Appeal, High Court, and County Court. The only exception is following a Detailed Assessment undertaken by...
Fundamental Dishonesty; Inconsistencies and Lack of Disclosure by the Claimant’s Solicitor is not Sufficient to Conclude that a Claimant is Fundamentally Dishonest
Reasonable and Proportionate Costs does not mean the lowest possible amount
ATE policy information not obtainable under Part 18 in Solicitors Act assessment (Wayne Raubenheimer v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd) Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant was refused its application to compel the defendant to answer a Part 18 request for...
£250k Fixed Fee Agreement Found to be Unreasonable & is Set Aside by Costs Judge Brown
Getting the basics right- “All of these errors could have been avoided with a little diligence”
In the matter of Thompson v NSL Limited [2021] EWHC 679 (QB) Master McCloud considered an application by the Claimant to revise parts of a budget originally approved by a District Judge in the County Court.
In the matter of Morrow v Shrewsbury RUFC, Mrs Justice Farbey considered whether it would be just for a Claimant who had exaggerated their claim to recover costs after succeeding at trial, and if not, what would be a reasonable and just deduction to those costs.
Solicitor and own client assessments have been on the rise for some time now. The question of whether informed consent has been provided by the client for the solicitor to charge fees over and above that which had been allowed on an inter-partes basis has recently been considered.