Entries by Toby Moreton

Reciprocal Costs Capping Orders In Public Interest Judicial Review Claims

In setting the reciprocal cap, it is necessary to bear in mind that in judicial review a claimant’s costs can generally be expected to be higher than a defendant’s (assuming representation of equivalent seniority). This is because the preparatory work of collating the evidence supporting a claim and of formulating the submissions to advance it is usually (though not always) more time-consuming than the work of producing responsive submissions and evidence.

CPR 36.17 | Part 36 Offer To Accept £1 Was A Genuine Attempt To Settle

The consequences of Part 36 can be punishing, but it is a separate question whether they are unjust. The justice of Part 36 is that decisions about litigation should be economically utilitarian: it actively discourages litigation on ‘points of principle’ by making litigation not fought on a commercial basis a high stakes activity.

,

CPR 46.9(3)(c)(ii) | Is Informed Consent Required? | And The One Fifth Rule

In Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd, Mr Justice Lavender determined that a solicitor who wishes to rely on having been given informed consent for the purposes of CPR 46.9(2) must not only point to a written agreement which meets the requirements of the rule, but must also show that his client gave informed consent to that agreement insofar as it permitted payment to the solicitor of an amount of costs greater than that which the client could have recovered from another party to the proceedings.

,

CPR 3.15A | Costs Budget Revisions | A Significant Development Need Not Be A Specific Event

The Claimant in this case applied to revise an approved costs budget. The application to revise (made soon after the transfer to the High Court took place) was based not on value alone but on the argument that the case had turned out to be more complex and more demanding of legal time and cost than was reasonably anticipated when the budget was drafted. It was said that the case had developed in the period following the initial realisation that the value had increased, and that it was not really feasible to seek to revise the budget before the District Judge in part because the impact of the new medical evidence, other than on value, was not at the time of the budgeting hearing clear.

CPR 36.5(2) | Does It Apply To Offers Made Within 21 Days Of An Adjourned Trial?

In this case the Defendant made an offer to the Third Party to accept £10,000 on 12 January 2017 (“the 2017 Offer”). The offer was made within 21 days of trial which was listed to take place on 30 January 2017. As a consequence, CPR 36.5(2) disapplied the requirement in CPR 36.5(1)(c) to specify the Relevant Period within which it would be liable for the Third Party’s costs.