Hadley v Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ 250

Costs Of Attending Rehabilitation Case Management Meetings Not Inherently Irrecoverable | CA Decision

“…for the reasons we have given, we allow the appeal. But the only real consequence is that the defendant can take all the reasonableness/proportionality arguments that they always wanted to take at the assessment stage. Those are arguments for which, as we have said, we have sympathy. In all those circumstances, we would urge the parties to agree a realistic order as to the costs of this appeal.”

Laytons LLP v Savage & Ors

Court Rejects Admissability Of Costs Lawyers’ Report In Common Law Assessment

In Laytons LLP v Savage & Ors [2024] EWHC 512 (SCCO), a law firm brought a Part 7 claim against former clients for unpaid fees. The clients had failed to pursue a statutory assessment, resulting in a limited common law assessment. The court dismissed the clients’ application to rely on a costs lawyer report, finding it went beyond the scope of the ordered assessment. The court also refused the clients’ request for disclosure of files relating to earlier paid invoices, satisfied that the necessary information was already provided in the itemised bills and breakdowns. The judgment illustrates the court’s approach to evidence and disclosure in common law assessments where the scope has been limited due to a party’s failure to pursue a statutory assessment.

Snippets

Guideline Hourly Rates Just A Starting Point On Detailed Assessment

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.

THAKALI & ORS V GAUCHAN & ANOR

Receiving Party Beating Its Own (Non Part 36) Offer Did Not Warrant Indemnity Costs Award

“…the claimants’ offer is not, in my view, sufficient to make the order for costs (excluding the first day) one to be assessed on the indemnity basis. The offer could have been made via Part 36 which would almost inevitably have resulted in an indemnity basis order in accordance with CPR 36.17, but it was not couched in those terms. Instead, the claimants have to show that the defendants’ conduct was “out of the norm” to obtain an indemnity basis order. There is only a single paragraph in the claimants’ submissions on this point and it refers solely to the defendants’ conduct in relation to negotiations and offers.”

Zuhri v Vardags Ltd

Effect And Consequences Of Part 36 Offers In Solicitor And Client Assessments

“It seems to me that (apart from the practical difficulties identified in Friston on Costs) one possible reason why CPR 36 has been imported into CPR 47, but not into the provisions for Solicitors Act assessments at CPR 46, is that it is not possible to reconcile the provisions of CPR 36 with subsections 70(9) and 70(10) of the 1974 Act.”

Kenton v Slee Blackwell PLC [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO)

The Consequences Of An Inadequate Costs Estimate And A Flawed Risk Assessment | Solicitors Act Assessment

“In circumstances where the client was given a hopelessly inaccurate estimate, relied on the estimate by entering into a conditional fee agreement, lost the opportunity of doing something different, was not given proper costs information, was billed a sum several times the amount of the estimate, and where the solicitor failed properly to explain the difference between the estimate and the costs incurred, the amount that the client should reasonably be expected to pay must be a figure close to the estimate upon which she relied. The claim settled before issue and following mediation. The estimate given for that outcome was £5,000 to £20,000 plus “additional costs for mediation”. Taking the top end of that bracket and adding £20,000 for mediation would give £40,000. That is just under half of the figure which Ms Slade referred to as the most she had ever charged for a case which went to trial. It is also not far off the amount that I would expect to have seen estimated and incurred. £40,000 seems to me to be the reasonable sum which the Claimant should be expected to pay.”