security for costs

Higher Level Of Security For Costs Based Upon A Potential Award Of Indemnity Costs Declined

The defendants in this anti-competition and breach of contract case sought security for costs against the claimant.

The claimant agreed with D4-D8 to provide security for 65% of their incurred and anticipated costs. However, D4-D8 sought security at a higher level than this based upon a potential award of indemnity costs given the “wide ranging and serious allegations of impropriety, which may include deceit”.

The defendants’ case was based largely on the decisions in Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) (which we reported on here) and Re Ingenious Litigation [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch). In both cases the court awarded security at 75%.

Marbrow v Sharpes Garden Services Ltd

The Cap On Recoverable Costs Of Costs Budgeting And Other Interesting Points

Master Gordon-Saker determined three issues which arose in the course of a , namely:

i) whether the caps on recoverable costs of budgeting provided by sub-paragraphs 7.2(a) and (b) of Practice Direction 3E of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 include or exclude value added tax;

ii) whether the Claimant was entitled to recover the sum of £2484.48 in respect of interest paid under a disbursement funding loan; and

iii) whether the Claimant’s entitlement to interest should run from 3 months after the date of the order for costs.

Genuine attempt to settle the proceedings

CPR 36.17(4) | Claimant’s Part 36 Offer Which Amounted To 99.7% Of The Claim Was A Genuine Attempt To Settle

In this case Mr Justice Zacaroli determined that the Claimant’s Part 36 Offer to settle its claim in the sum of £48,290.00, which amounted to 99.7% of the amount claimed was a genuine offer to settle the proceedings

Narayanasamy v Karim & Anor [2020] EWHC B22

The Limitation Act 1980 And Recovery Of Unpaid Solicitors’ Fees

When does the six year limitation period begin to run for the purpose of recovering unpaid fees?

Applying principles established by the Court of Appeal in the nineteenth century case of Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 Master Leonard found that the contract of retainer between the solicitor and his client had ended in April 2013 when the solicitor’s partnership was converted to a limited company and he ceased to practice in his own name.

Consequently, it was determined that, despite the final bill not having been rendered until January 2014, any right to take legal action to recover payment for his legal services had been statute barred since the beginning of April 2019.

Costs Set Off

Set-Off Of Costs Against Damages Or Costs | The Principles

The defendant was awarded 50% of its costs and sought to set these off against the award of damages.

In determining this issue, HHJ Turner set out the criteria to applied, as identified by Scott LJ in the leading case of Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service [1992] 1 W.L.R. 492

MEF v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1300 (QB)

Does A Calderbank Offer Expire At The Door Of The Court?

In the course of costs negotiations following settlement of liability in this clinical negligence claim the Defendant made a number of Calderbank offers, the last of which being for the sum of £440,000 on condition that if not accepted within a reasonable time, the Claimant would be responsible for the Defendant’s costs.

Utting v City College Norwich

CPR 3.18(b) | Underspend Does Not Constitute Good Reason To Depart From An Approved Budget

Master Brown (costs judge) has joined the debate about the effect of an underspend in a costs budgeted case.

“I agree with [DJ Lumb] that if an underspend were to be a good reason for departing from a budget it would be liable to substantially undermine the effectiveness of cost budgeting. As the Judge effectively observed, solicitors who had acted efficiently and kept costs within budget would find their costs subject to , whereas less efficient solicitors who exceeded the budget would, absent any other “good reason”, receive the budgeted sum and avoid

“even if ‘underspend’ were a “good reason” for the purpose of CPR 3.18 it does not follow that there should be a deduction from the sums claimed. Plainly, the fact that a party has spent less than its budget for a phase does not mean there is therefore in fact a good or appropriate reason for any further reduction and I was not satisfied that there was any additional “good reason” for any such reduction.”

HEATHFIELD INTERNATIONAL LLC V AXIOM STONE (LONDON) LTD

CPR 3.14 | Late Costs Budget | Relief From Sanctions Denied

Relief from sanctions was refused to the second Defendant (“D2”) in this case following the late filing of its costs budget.

Having initially failed to file its budget prior to the CCMC (which was adjourned) D2 then failed to file it less than 21 days prior to the adjourned hearing.

To compound matters, D2 then left it until the day before the adjourned CCMC to file and serve its application for relief.

Finding that there had been “an abysmal approach on D2’s part to conducting this litigation efficiently” HHJ Simon Barker QC refused relief from sanctions result in D2 being treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.