Entries by Toby Moreton

,

Beyond the Blue Pencil Test | Beneficiaries’ Wider Rights Under Section 71(3)

“Whatever the reason for Lloyd LJ’s assumption, in my judgment it was wrong. For the reasons set out at [4] to [26] above, I would hold that there are material differences between applications under section 71(3) and those under section 71(1) because of the different nature of the interests of the third party that the different sub-sections are intended to reflect. The consequence of Lloyd LJ’s mistaken assumption is that his judgment cannot be relied upon as saying anything authoritative about the position that obtains where an application and assessment are brought under section 71(3): his judgment simply does not deal with that question. Furthermore, in my judgment there is no rational basis for transposing the principles that apply to a section 71(1) assessment, as identified in [95] of Tim Martin, to the different circumstances of an assessment pursuant to section 71(3). I would therefore reject the appeal under Ground 1 on the basis of principle and the absence of any binding authority that requires us to apply the Tim Martin principles to an assessment under section 71(3). In my judgment the Costs Judge was correct to find that Tim Martin was distinguishable and should be distinguished – essentially for the reasons he gave – and that the relevant principles to be applied are to be derived from In re Brown, which is binding on us.”

English Grant Of Representation Required For Standing In Administration Claims

“The entirety of the claim is brought by the claimant on behalf of the estate of the late Mr Ali. Each cause of action seeks a remedy not for the benefit of the claimant personally but for the benefit of those entitled to the estate. The claim is therefore brought in a representative capacity and thus as part of its administration, and English law applies to the question whether the claimant has standing. As the claimant is not named as executor by the tenor of the Proof of Will, it could be entitled only to a grant of letters of administration. As no such grant has been obtained, the proceedings are a nullity.”

Receiving Party Beating Its Own (Non Part 36) Offer Did Not Warrant Indemnity Costs Award

“…the claimants’ offer is not, in my view, sufficient to make the order for costs (excluding the first day) one to be assessed on the indemnity basis. The offer could have been made via Part 36 which would almost inevitably have resulted in an indemnity basis order in accordance with CPR 36.17, but it was not couched in those terms. Instead, the claimants have to show that the defendants’ conduct was “out of the norm” to obtain an indemnity basis order. There is only a single paragraph in the claimants’ submissions on this point and it refers solely to the defendants’ conduct in relation to negotiations and offers.”

£25k Valuation Was Reasonable Despite £11k Settlement | Fixed Costs Not Applied

“Firstly, the simple question for the District Judge to answer was whether the claimant’s valuation of the claim in excess of £25,000 at the relevant time in June 2018 was reasonable or not, which the District Judge did consider and address. Second, in my view the burden of proof issue did not assist in the circumstances of this case. Neither party in their written skeleton arguments referred to the burden of proof issue adequately or at all. Mr Hogan, counsel for the defendant, did not say in the hearing below that the burden of proof was decisive in the circumstances of this case.”

Non Scientific Broad Brush Approach To Common Costs

27. In Fourie v Le Roux and Others [2006] EWHC 1840 (Ch) in a case which did not appear to differentiate specific and non-specific costs Warren J held that a non-scientific broad-brush approach would be appropriate (see paras 14 and 15 of his judgment). This case along with the two first instance decisions referred to in the Solicitors Journal (20 December 2012 edition) appear to lend support to Master Simons’ approach in the instant case.

Advocacy And “Documentary or Procedural” Rates For Costs Lawyers

Different rates for advocacy and other costs-related work are justifiable based on the nature of the work involved. Advocacy, requiring a higher level of expertise and experience, can command a higher hourly rate compared to documentary or procedural work in legal proceedings. A rate of £200 per hour is reasonable for advocacy by any experienced, qualified costs advocate.