A Costs Officer conducting a detailed assessment on a standard basis was not precluded from considering whether the claimants’ costs should be limited to those recoverable under stages 1 and 2 of the Pre-Action RTA Protocol where there was a consent order in which the defendant agreed to pay the claimants reasonable costs.
Costs that are disallowed for want of retainer should not factor in the calculation of the one fifth rule.
Under the terms of a Tomlin order which provided that one of three Defendants was only to pay the Claimant’s costs which related exclusively to the action against it, and not those incurred by the Dlaimant in respect of the dispute with the other two Defendants, that Defendant was liable for any common costs which could be attributed to it by division, rather than apportionment.
A Master had been correct to dismiss an application for an assessment of costs brought under Paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3)(c) of the Community Legal Service (Costs Protection) Regulations 2000 as it was out of time.
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.
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.