Entries by Toby Moreton

Costs Of Late Amendment Which Did Not Substantially Alter The Case

In Magee and Others v Crocker and Others, the High Court addressed costs arguments following a judgment on a disputed share transfer and shareholders’ agreement, with particular focus on the impact of a late amendment to plead novation. The court considered whether to apply the general rule from Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co. Ltd regarding costs up to the date of a late amendment. Departing from this principle, the court found that the amendment did not substantially alter the case and would not have changed the defendant’s approach if pleaded earlier. The judge noted that even if the novation case had been pleaded initially, the claim would still have been vigorously resisted, and the defendant was not deprived of the opportunity to make a Part 36 offer or compromise the proceedings. While the claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the amendment application, they were awarded 90% of their overall costs, subject to a 10% reduction to reflect partial success on some arguments and issues with evidence.

Claimant Penalised In Costs For “Unrealistic And Inappropriately Ambitious” Costs Budget

Following his recent decision in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB), Master Thornett again addressed the consequences of maintaining an unrealistic costs budget in Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB). The case arose from a personal injury claim valued at £200,000+ where the claimant’s budget of £944,537.16 (including incurred costs of £358,762.51) was deemed to be “unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious”. Despite opportunities for revision following the CCMC in June 2024 and prior to a seperately listed costs management hearing listed to take place on 17 July 2024, the claimant offered only “slightly reduced figures”. Following aggregate reductions of almost 50% (excluding Trial Prep, Trial and AR/Settlement, which were deferred) the court considered whether to deviate from the usual “costs in the case” order for the costs management process. Master Thornett ultimately ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the Costs Management Hearing and reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs management by 35%.

Claimant Penalised In Costs For “Unreasonable and Unrealistic” Costs Budget

Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) addressed the issue of costs orders following a Costs Management Conference in a clinical negligence claim. The court considered whether to depart from the typical “costs in the case” order due to substantial reductions made to the Claimant’s budget. Master Thornett emphasised the court’s wide discretion under CPR 44.2 and determined that costs management is not necessarily interwoven with case management in a way that always requires a holistic “in the case” approach. The court departed from the usual order, finding the Claimant’s Precedent H unreasonable and unrealistic. It ordered no costs for the initial hearing, the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of the subsequent hearing, and a 15% reduction in the Claimant’s costs management costs. The case underscores the importance of presenting reasonable and realistic budgets in costs management proceedings.

Costs Budgeting and Late Revisions: Court’s Approach to Post-Trial Amendments | Good Reason To Depart?

In Queensgate Place Ltd v Solid Star Ltd & Ors (No. 3) (Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2139 (Ch), the court addressed costs budgeting issues. The key issue was the approval of a late-filed revised costs budget. QPL sought to increase their budget to cover a separate Remedies Hearing not accounted for in the original budget. The court declined to approve the revised budget after the Remedies Hearing had concluded but noted that there were grounds for departing from the approved budget on assessment. The judgment clarified that a court may depart from an approved budget on assessment to account for significant developments in litigation that were unclear at the CCMC. It also established that it is inappropriate for a judge to approve budget amendments after the relevant trial has concluded, and that detailed issues of budget revisions may be left to the costs judge to resolve during assessment.

Conditional Fee Agreements | Enforceability of Combined Fixed Fee And Hourly Rate Provisions

Stephen John Finnan v Candey Limited [2024] EWHC 2157 (Ch) concerned an appeal against a decision regarding a conditional fee agreement (CFA) between Finnan and his former solicitors. The High Court considered the interpretation of the CFA’s hourly rate clause, its validity as a contentious business agreement, the necessity of an inquiry into hours worked, and compliance with success fee regulations. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the CFA created a liability for hourly rates, it was still a valid contentious business agreement due to the overall cap on liability. It held that an inquiry into hours worked was unnecessary as payment was not sought on that basis, and the agreement did not include a success fee as defined by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

Payments On Account In Budgeted Cases And Pre Judgment Interest On Costs

In Irwell Riverside Developments Ltd v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2110 (TCC), the High Court dealt with, among other issues, a payment on account of costs in a budgeted case and a claim for pre-judgment interest. Having found the claimant to have been successful party, despite losing on some significant issues, Mr Roger Ter Haar KC awarded IRDL 60% of its costs and ordered an interim payment of £592,964.77, calculated as 90% of 60% of their budgeted costs and 75% of 60% of incurred costs. The court also awarded pre-judgment interest at 8% per annum from the date of payment of each invoice, a “commonplace” practice, per the decision of Sir Alastair Norris in Sharp and others v Blank and others [2020] EWHC 1870 (Ch).

Interim Statute Bills And CFAs, Can They Co-Exist? | Court of Appeal Decision

In Signature Litigation LLP v Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Court of Appeal considered whether invoices issued under a conditional fee agreement could be classified as interim statutory bills. Signature Litigation had provided legal services to Ivanishvili under a CFA, issuing invoices for 65% of the standard fee, with the remaining 35% and additional success fees contingent on specific outcomes. The Court dismissed Signature’s appeal, ruling that these invoices were not interim statutory bills as they lacked the required finality and completeness as they could be subject to further charges depending on future contingencies.

No Right To Render Statute Bills And Too Many “Breaks In The Chain” To Form A Chamberlain

In Lansdowne Group Limited & John Kelly v Weightmans LLP, the court addressed the status of invoices issued during complex litigation. The claimants sought delivery of a Solicitors Act compliant bill, arguing the invoices they had been sent througout the litigation were not statute bills. The court found no express agreement for interim statute bills in the retainer, and that the invoices could not be considered interim statute bills due to ambiguities and overlaps. Costs Judge Nagalingham determined that the retainer documentation was unclear, failing to distinguish adequately between payments on account and billing arrangements. He rejected Weightmans’ argument that overlaps in invoices were de minimis, finding that such overlaps prevented the bills from being final for the periods covered. He also ruled that a Chamberlain bill had not been formed due to multiple breaks in the chain of invoices. Consequently, he ordered Weightmans to deliver a bill of costs pursuant to CPR 46.10.

Part 20 Defendant Ordered To Pay 1/3rd Of Defendant’s Costs Of Defending The Action

In Alison Healey (Widow And Executrix of the Estate of Simon Andrew Healey, Deceased) v Mr Daniel McGrath [2024] EWHC 1360 (KB) (07 June 2024), the High Court apportioned liability and costs between Ramsay Health Care UK Operations Limited and Mr Daniel McGrath, a consultant surgeon, following the death of a patient, Mr Simon Healey. The central issues were the extent of each defendant’s responsibility for the negligence and whether Mr McGrath (the Part 20 Defendant) should contribute to Ramsay’s costs of defending the main claim, which Ramsay had settled with the deceased’s widow. The court found Mr McGrath 75% liable for the damages and claimant’s costs, and exercised its discretion under Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to order him to pay one-third of Ramsay’s costs in the main action, considering factors such as his primary responsibility and unsatisfactory conduct in the proceedings.