In some cases, obtaining a Grant of Representation may be essential solely for pursuing the claim. Consequently, in successful outcomes, the costs incurred for obtaining this Grant could potentially be claimed as part of the overall costs related to the case. This perspective emphasises the practical intertwining of procedural necessities with the substantive rights of claimants in personal injury litigation.
In English law, a person must have standing to initiate legal proceedings, specifically as an administrator. This standing is obtained through the issuance of letters of administration. If proceedings are commenced without this grant, they are considered a nullity. This principle applies to cases involving the administration of foreign estates, where proceedings without proper representation are deemed invalid.
When solicitors possess and demonstrate the necessary skill, effort, and specialized knowledge in a case, their hourly rates should not be reduced merely because counsel is also involved. The court should evaluate if there was an excessive involvement of counsel, which could influence the division of charges between solicitors and counsel, but this does not automatically justify a reduction in the solicitors’ hourly rates.
In judicial review proceedings, even within a criminal context, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant costs where there are exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances can include the case being a test case, involving significant legal resources, raising far-reaching issues, and the shifting nature of the prosecution’s position.
The Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) serve as an initial reference point in detailed cost assessments due to the lack of alternative starting points. However, the GHR is not definitive; it’s a basis for further detailed discussion, especially in light of the factors outlined in CPR 44.4.
An overall cap on solicitor’s fees in a conditional fee agreement applies only if the solicitor chooses to wait for the outcome of the claim. If the solicitor opts to claim their charges before the conclusion of the claim, the overall cap is not applicable.
In cases which settle against multiple defendants, a claimant is entitled to seek 100% of non specific common costs against any one of those defendants, leaving those defendants to argue issues of apportiionment between themselves.
27. In Fourie v Le Roux and Others [2006] EWHC 1840 (Ch) in a case which did not appear to differentiate specific and non-specific costs Warren J held that a non-scientific broad-brush approach would be appropriate (see paras 14 and 15 of his judgment). This case along with the two first instance decisions referred to in the Solicitors Journal (20 December 2012 edition) appear to lend support to Master Simons’ approach in the instant case.
Different rates for advocacy and other costs-related work are justifiable based on the nature of the work involved. Advocacy, requiring a higher level of expertise and experience, can command a higher hourly rate compared to documentary or procedural work in legal proceedings. A rate of £200 per hour is reasonable for advocacy by any experienced, qualified costs advocate.