In Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd and others v G4k Fashion Ltd and others, David Stone, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the High Court, considered the issue as to whether the existence of a genuine Part 36 offer prevented the court from dealing with the costs of a liability trial prior to quantum being … Continue reading Does a genuine Part 36 offer prevent the court from ordering costs, despite alleged unreasonable conduct, where quantum is yet to be determined?
Since the COVID-19 lockdown began in March 2020, many a change has been experienced by all and now the development of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is no different. The definition of proportionality in CPR 44.3(5) is to be expanded to take into account the involvement of vulnerable parties and witnesses, following a detailed report … Continue reading Proportionality expanded to include vulnerability… but whose pocket will be vulnerable?
The issue of indemnity costs orders and budgets has come before the High Court on several occasions over the last few years. However, the Court of Appeal has now weighed in on the issue. So, what is the position regarding the application of costs budgets when a receiving party has been awarded indemnity costs?
At first glance, awarding a law firm based in Canary Wharf (one of the main financial hubs in the world) hourly rates in line with City of London rates may not come as a huge surprise. You would be forgiven for not realising that the post code of Canary Wharf (E14) in fact classifies it … Continue reading Why guideline hourly rates offer little assistance on assessments (particularly City work)
In the recent case of R (Kuznetsov) v London Borough of Camden, both the claimant and defendant parties fell foul of the rules for filing a form N260: Statement of Costs (summary assessment), and paid the penalty accordingly. So, when should you file an N260?
By way of background, the claim in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh related to a medical negligence matter and centres around the alleged negligent treatment of a Baker’s cyst. The claimant, Christopher Morgan, instructed Irwin Mitchell and entered into a conditional fee … Continue reading Arguments on the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17: Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh
The introduction of costs budgeting in April 2013 filled many practitioners with a feeling of horror. While it is fair to say that seven years in to the process, we have got to grips with it, there are still some elements of costs budget preparation that cause confusion.
Anyone working in the costs world, where your client is a receiving party, will no doubt understand one of the core considerations in all cases. What is an appropriate amount to have on account of your bill? We have had a number of judgments in recent times which have given guidance on this point. Mars … Continue reading Interim payments: I v Hull & East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and RXK v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Everyone has played Monopoly and enjoyed the cash bonus for passing GO! How about receiving your cash bonus for failing to comply? Well CPR 45.24 allows you to do just that.
It seems a year is a long time in costs jurisprudence. In July 2018, I wrote a piece for this blog which explored the case of Bratek v Clark-Drain Limited. In that case, the court considered the question of whether it was possible for fixed costs to be avoided if the consent order agreed at … Continue reading The ongoing saga of fixed costs and consent orders: Adelekun v Lai Ho
Since the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) reforms in 2013, the end (for the most part) of additional liabilities being recoverable between the parties has required practitioners to adapt to seeking these costs from their client. Whilst in the majority of cases this has not proved to be … Continue reading Unintended consequences: protected parties and approval of costs
The issue in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh related to the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17 (qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)).
After a voluntary pilot period and a delayed implementation date, the electronic bill of costs was formally introduced in April 2018. With it came a general confusion and steep learning curve that we have not experienced in the legal costs profession since the 2013 Jackson reforms. As a so-called “millennial” and recently qualified costs lawyer, … Continue reading The year of the e-bill: a reflection on the introduction of the electronic bill of costs in 2018 and a look forward to the automated future of legal costs