Entries by Toby Moreton

Relief Granted Following Late Filing Of A Costs Budget

Lionel Persey QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court granted the Defendants relief from sanctions following the late filing of their costs budget by 13 days. It was accepted that the breach had been inadvertent and understandable given that the Defendants had been relying on an agreed table of procedural steps to be completed before the CCMC, which made no mention of . It was found that the Defendants had “dropped the ball” but that their default was not egregious in the particular circumstances of the case.

Court of Appeal: Fixed Costs Do Not Apply To Appeals But QOCS Does

The Court of Appeal determined the following costs issues following a successful second appeal:

(1) Do the rules governing fixed costs in CPR r.45.17 to 19 apply to the costs of the appeal?

(2) If not, does CPR r.52.19 apply?
(3) If CPR r.52.19 does apply, what order for costs should we make?

(4) Does the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting regime in CPR Part 44 apply to the costs of the appeal so as to limit the extent to which any order may be enforced against the respondent?

Costs In Private Prosecutions, London Solicitors And The “Singh” Discount

Following a successful private prosecution of his former co-director, resulting in three years of imprisonment, the claimant was awarded payment of his prosecution costs out of central funds. The designated officer allowed him the sum of £150,000 plus VAT as against a total sum of £427.909.66.

The designated officer’s determination was based largely on the disallowance of central London rates on grounds that adequate representation could have been found more locally and the application of a Singh reduction based on a comparator with the notional cost of the case being brought by the CPS.

Know Your Retainer Documentation Or Pay The Price

This case highlightds the importance of familiarising yourself fully with the retainer documentation under which you are acting.

In the course of a in the SCCO Deputy Master Friston (costs judge) found that the conditional fee agreements (there were three, of which one “The Third Agreement” was relevant to the instant proceedings) were so confusing as to be almost incomprehensible.

An Interest Exclusive Part 36 Offer Is Not A Part 36 Offer

Can a Part 36 Offer which excludes interest be validly made either generally or in the context of proceedings?

It is been an issue on which a number of judges have held diverging views.

In the present case, His Honour Judge Dight CBE, upholding Deputy Master Campbell’s first instance decision, had concluded that an offer exclusive of interest cannot be a valid Part 36 offer.

In contrast, in a matter we reported in May, Horne v Prescot (No 1) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1322 (QB), Nicol J, dismissing an appeal from Master Nagalingam, held that, at least in the context of detailed assessment proceedings, an offer excluding interest can be an effective Part 36 offer.

So, what is the answer?

The Scope Of An Appeal From Provisional Assessment

Dismissing this appeal against a decision of Master Leonard in the SCCO Mr Justice Stewart held that pursuant to CPR 47.24, the scope of an appeal against decisions made in the course of a provisional assessment is limited to a re-hearing only of any specific decisions which had been challenged at an oral hearing. In other words, if it hasn’t first been challenged at an oral hearing pursuant to CPR 47.15(7), it cannot be appealed.