Entries by Toby Moreton

,

CPR 44.2(8) | Payments On Account In Costs Budgeted Cases

Following judgment for the Defendant in this case, the court awarded costs on the standard basis along with pre judgment interest at 2% pursuant to CPR 44.2(6)(g). The Judge went on to consider an appropriate payment on account. In line with developing case law, in particular the decisions in MacInnes v Gross [2017] 4 WLR 49 and Thomas Pink Ltd. v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd. [2014] EWHC 3258 (Ch) he awarded 90% of the budgeted costs as against 50% offered by the Claimant.

,

CPR 46.9(3), Informed Consent And The Dangers Of Oral Retainers

In this case, a dispute arose as to the terms of the retainer as between the solicitor and client . It was broadly agreed that at the parties’ initial meeting in December 2017 it had been agreed that Mr Slade would act on Mr Murray’s behalf to the conclusion of his case for a fixed fee of £50,000 plus VAT including all disbursements. Following a PTR in or around May 2018 Mr Murray expressed dissatisfaction with his barrister and told Mr Slade “you had better get this sorted out”. In response, Mr Slade retained another barrister, Mr Moraes, for a fee of £25,000 + Vat. This was as against the previous barrister’s fee of £10,000 + Vat. The parties differed in their evidence as to what happened next.

CPR 36.17(4) | Does It Apply To The Costs Of Detailed Assessment?

CPR 36.17(4) applies where a Claimant beats its own Part 36 Offer in substantive proceedings bringing with it various rewards including a 10% uplift, enhanced interest and indemnity costs. The question to be addressed in this case was whether it applies equally to the costs of detailed assessment i.e. can you make a valid Part 36 Offer in respect of the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings and reap those same rewards if it is beaten? In other words, do the the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings, for the purposes of CPR 36.17(4), fall within “any issue that arises in the claim”?

,

Interim Statute Bills | Does Your Retainer Allow Them?

In this SCCO decision on a preliminary issue before the start of a Solicitors Act assessment Master Rowley found that whilst the interim statute bills rendered to the client by his solicitors throughout the life of the retainer were to all intents and purpose statute in form and content, the retainers (private and then CFA) did not allow them to be rendered.

Do The Aarhus Convention Costs Caps Include VAT? | Court Of Appeal Decision

“…there is no authority at the level of this Court in which the issue which now arises before us has been authoritatively considered… Accordingly, we must address the issue on first principles and, in particular, as a matter of interpretation. On that issue, we have reached the conclusion that the caps which are set out in CPR 45.43, in particular at (2) and (3), are inclusive of VAT.”

CPR 47.12 | Setting Aside A Default Costs Certificate | Application Denied

Master Leonard (costs judge) rejected an application to set aside a default costs certificate in the sum of £363,695.28.

The defendant’s costs draftsmen had failed to serve Points of Dispute within the agreed extended time period for doing so as a result of, on their evidence, pressures of work exacerbated by the country going into lockdown in March 2020.

Following service of a default costs certificate four months after the extended deadline had been missed the Defendant applied to set it aside.

The judge found that the Denton criteria applied. It was accepted that the default was both significant and serious. The remaining question to be decided was whether in all the circumstances it would be just, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, to set the DCC aside.

The judge found that it was not.

The Chorley Principle In The Court Of Protection

Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon considered the application of the Chorley principle in the context of this Court of Protection case where, for the material part, a solicitor (“SAP”) had been a party to the proceedings and had an interest in the outcome in that she was the nominated attorney under a disputed LPA. During this time she had acted as a Litigant in Person within the firm by whom she was employed. SAP unsuccessfully sought to recover her costs on the same basis as if she had instructed her solicitor firm to act for her.

,

The Correct Approach To Summary Assessment | Guideline Hourly Rates Up By 35%?

This appeal from a summary assessment of costs was brought on grounds that the District Judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the components of the claimant’s N260 Statement of Costs and had effectively imposed her own unilateral tariff without any calculation or proper reasoning, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s guidance in 1800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 721.