In this case between a wholesale supplier of mobile telephones (“Infinity”), in administration, and their former solicitors (“TKP”), TKP sought and were granted an order for security for costs against Infinity in the sum of £350,000. The issue which arose cantered around the manner in which the security was to be provided.
If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
6 search results for:
The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of both Master Rowley (costs judge) and Jay J on appeal to disallow additional liabilities in the form of success fees (for both solicitors and counsel) and ATE premium claimed in the sum of £1,078,972.72.
The long awaited and much anticipated judgment in these appeals has been handed down.
The appeals raised a number of specific issues arising out of the respondent’s successful challenge on an assessment of the claimant’s costs to the amount of the ATE insurance premium recoverable by the appellants.
They also raised a number of wider points relating to reasonableness and proportionality and the proper approach to the assessment of costs.
Applying the principles laid down in Surrey v Barnet And Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 451 Mr Justice Jay dismissed this appeal against a Costs Judge’s disallowance of additional liabilities including a success fee of over £300,000 following a switch from legal aid funding to CFA in 2012.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of District Judge Bellamy (first instance) and Soole J (on appeal) that a 100% success fee in a low value personal injury claim which was fixed without any reference to the actual risk involved amounted to a cost of “an unusual nature or amount” under CPR 46.9(3)(c).
There have been number of cases recently dealing with alleged misconduct in the course of detailed assessment proceedings and applications under CPR 44.11. In this latest decision, an appeal from the Senior Courts Costs Officer, 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.