During any time when a litigant acted in person they were not a legally assisted party within the meaning of the Legal Aid Act 1988 s.17. That extended to any period after their solicitors had ceased to act for them and had communicated that to the opponent’s solicitors, even if a period of time then elapsed before they took any active steps as a litigant in person.
On the facts, the Judge had been entitled to apportion costs in line with the Claimant’s liability in a road traffic accident as he had had proper regard not only to the Claimant’s claim, but also the Defendant’s notional cross-claim; the exercise of his discretion could not therefore be criticised.
Where a party was entitled to its costs, it had to include all of its costs on the bill for detailed assessment. If that party was entitled to recover the cost of instructing more than one solicitor, it had to include the costs of each solicitor separately in the bill and, if it failed so to do, could not claim a separate assessment in respect of the costs of the solicitor omitted.
A retrospective success fee in a retrospective conditional fee agreement was not contrary to public policy.
This is an important decision concerning the recoverability of costs incurred during an inquest in later civil proceedings. It affects clinical negligence, personal injury and HRA practitioners alike. TMC were instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen in the case of Roach and attended before Master Hurst on the assessment of costs. Andrew Post of Hailsham Chambers represented them on the Claimants’ successful appeal to the High Court.
In Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Limited, the Court of Appeal addressed whether costs judges have the power to order a paying party to pay only a proportion of the assessed costs at the outset of a detailed assessment. The claimant had accepted a Part 36 offer, becoming entitled to his costs. The defendant argued that the costs judge could reduce the recoverable costs by a percentage based on the parties’ conduct. The Court held that costs judges do not have jurisdiction to prospectively limit the proportion of assessed costs payable, as they are bound by the deemed costs order following Part 36 acceptance. Unreasonable conduct should be addressed through the line-by-line assessment process, not by imposing a percentage reduction at the outset.