Indemnity Costs | Not A Blank Cheque
A short reminder from The Honourable Mr Justice Calver that an award of indemnity basis costs does not hand the receiving party a blank cheque.
Entries by Toby Moreton
CPR 47.20(3)(b) | Can The Size Of Reduction Save A Bad Offer In Detailed Assessment Proceedings?
CPR 47.20 provides (so far as is relevant) that …
(1) The receiving party is entitled to the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings except where –
…
(b) the court makes some other order in relation to all or part of the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings.
…
(3) In deciding whether to make some other order, the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including –
…
(b) the amount, if any, by which the bill of costs has been reduced.
CPR 21.10 | Can A Part 36 Offer Be Withdrawn After Acceptance But Before Court Approval?
This case addressed two novel questions:
i) Where a protected party accepts a Part 36 offer is the other party subsequently able to withdraw that offer before approval of the settlement?
ii) When the court is asked to approve a settlement, on what grounds (if any) can a Part 36 offer be withdrawn?
The Cost Of Providing Security For Costs | Court of Appeal Decision
In this case between a wholesale supplier of mobile telephones (“Infinity”), in administration, and their former solicitors (“TKP”), TKP sought and were granted an order for security for costs against Infinity in the sum of £350,000. The issue which arose cantered around the manner in which the security was to be provided.
CPR 3.15A | Costs Budget Revisions | Significant Developments And The Need To Act Promptly
Master Kaye has refused an application by the Claimant to revised an approved costs budget under CPR 3.15A. Her lengthy decision provides some useful guidance to parties seeking to vary a costs budget and highlights in stark terms the mandatory requirement to act promptly.
Costs Of Interested Parties In Procurement Challenges
Under what circumstances can an Interested Party to a procurement challenge recover its costs, specifically where that party has not participated at all in any of the substantive hearings?
CPR 45.43 | Arrhus Convention Costs Caps And VAT
The Claimant brought a judicial review to quash the grant of planning permission for the use of lodges, static caravans and touring caravans at Ruda Holiday Park, Croyde, Braunton Devon.
After procedural orders had been made early in the proceedings, the parties agreed a consent order on 19 November 2020 in the following terms:
“Any liability of the Defendant and Interested Party to pay costs in this action to the Claimant is capped at £35,000 + VAT (£42,000).” The reasons for this were set out in the recitals namely “AND UPON the Claimant applying, in its claim form and within its statement of facts and grounds, for an Aarhus Protective Costs Order within the meaning of 45.43 of the Civil Procedure Rules AND UPON the parties not contesting that this is an Aarhus claim”.
Liability Only Part 36 Offer Ineffective Where Causation In Dispute | Court Of Appeal Decision
In the course of this personal injury claim the Claimant had made two Part 36 Offers, to essentially the same effect, namely that he would accept 90% of his claim for damages and interest to be assessed, on the basis that liability was admitted. The Claimant had alleged that he had sustained two distinct injuries as a result of the Defendant’s negligence in the form of whiplash and injury to his lower back. He had claimed damages of approximately £10,000.
Experts’ Fees | How Much Detail Is Required On Detailed Assessment?
When it comes to detailed assessment of solicitors’ fees the level of detail required is dictated largely by the Practice Direction accompanying CPR 47, specifically paras 5.12 to 5.22. But what about the fees of any experts who have assisted with the case?
The Power To Strike Out Points Of Dispute In The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
Following the (original) Respondent’s failure to pay an interim payment as ordered by the FTT, the (original) Applicant applied for an order debarring the Respondent from relying upon its Points of Dispute and for judgment in the full amount of their costs.