image_pdfimage_print

CPR 44.11: Misconduct in detailed assessment proceedings

misconduct

There have been number of cases recently dealing with alleged misconduct in the course of detailed assessment proceedings and applications under CPR 44.11. Most notably, in Gempride Ltd v Bamrah and another [2018] EWCA Civ 1367, the Court of Appeal halved the recoverable profit costs of the claimant solicitors’ firm as a result of them certifying a bill of costs in which a rate higher than that to they were contractually entitled had been claimed.

In this latest decision, an appeal from the Senior Courts Costs Office, the High Court upheld the decision of Deputy Master Campbell (formerly Master Campbell) that notwithstanding a number of mis-certifications in the Bill of Costs these were all explainable errors none of which amounted to unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11.

The decision also dealt with the level of recoverable ATE Premium, which both Deputy Master Campbell and Mr Justice Stewart declined to interfere with, reaffirming that Rogers v Myrthyr Tydfil remains good law and that “costs judges do not have the expertise to second guess the insurance market, still less to deconstruct the policy that is offered as a package into its constituent parts”.

MURRAY v OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST [2019] EWHC 539 (QB)