| CFA's & Success fees |
Details |
Courtesy of: |
Bowen v Bridgend County Borough Council
Full text |
SCCO- 25th Mar 2004. Eleven housing repair
cases settled on average for £1631 with costs claimed on average £8012 (with
100% success fee). Base costs on average £4066. Issues raised 1) enforceability
of CFA's 2)effect of availability of legal aid (sic) 3) amount of success
fee 4)proportionality 5) recoverability of fees for housing report, video
evidence and risk assessment report 6) surveyor report fees. The Claimants
solicitors lose on all points |
SCCO |
| |
|
|
Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd & Others
Full Text |
SCCO - 4th Mar 2004 -The prospect
of a new wave of technical challenges to 'no win, no fee' agreements was
raised last week, when the courts held that the Law Society's own model
agreement fell foul of the 2000 CFA Regulations |
SCCO |
| |
|
|
The Claims Direct Test Cases Tranche 2
Full Text |
Chief Master Hurst, Senior
Costs Judge, has held that a payment of £395 + tax made by Solicitors to
claims management company Medical Legal Support Services (a branch of Claims
Direct) amounted to a referral fee and was unlawful and thus the Defendants
did not have to pay it. |
The Court Service |
The Accident Group Test Cases -Tranche 1
Judgment |
Judgment of Master Hurst of 27th Nov 2002 |
CFA |
Sarwar v Alam - SCCO 7th February 2003
Full text(PDF) |
Damages £2,250 - Costs £255,000.
The Defendants were not happy. Master Hunt deliberates and resolves questions
on (i) level of insurance premium recoverable for the CFA (£62,000) in respect
of Court of Appeal hearing: Whether excessive?: whether the fact that the
solicitors paid it breached the indemnity principle or rendered the agreement
champertous?: How to deal with a 50% no claims bonus in relation to the
premium (ii) level of the claimants success fee under the CFA (iii) Claimants
solicitors hourly rates |
LC-uk |
Gliddon v Lloyd Maunder Ltd- (SCCO-31st January
2003)
Full Text (PDF) |
Issues regarding validity
of collective CFA agreements |
LC-uk |
Home Office v Lownds
Full text |
Court of Appeal 22nd March 2002
(Wordformat) |
Bailii |
English v Clipson
Full text |
15th August 2002 The "Peterborough"
Decision |
Lawzone |
Halloran v Delaney
Full text |
6th September 2002 (Success fees
in Part 8 proceedings) |
Lawzone |
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD v KEITH BURSTEIN (2002)
Judgment |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1739 On a detailed
costs assessment the appellant was not entitled to an order enquiring further
into the arrangements between the respondent and his solicitors as to liability
for payment of costs as the arrangements had not been champertous and there
was no question of there having been unlawful maintenance of the respondent's
libel claim. |
CFA |
| Detailed Assessment issues/estimates/rates etc |
|
|
Burns/Alcock v Novartis Grimsby Group Ltd/Tioxide Group
Full Text |
SCCCO-16th Feb 2004. Following Leigh
in relation to costs estimates, in this case there was substantial additional
work required between allocation and trial |
SCCO |
Leigh v Michelin TyresPLC
Full Text |
CA-8th Dec 2003. wholly inadequate estimate
of future profit costs- to what degree this should be taken into account
on final assessment. Conclusion that solicitors not bound by estimate solely
on the grounds that it was inadequate there must be something else i.e reliance
by other party |
Bailii |
| |
|
|
Crosbie V Munroe
Full Text |
CA- 17th Mar 2004-Clarification regarding
the the recovery of claimant solicitors costs in relation to costs negotiations;
Part 8 proceedings and Detailed Assessment hearings |
YAWS |
Smith v Havering Hospital NHS Trust
Full Text |
SCCO -30th May 2003. Failure to adhere to
pre action protocol in clinical negligence case (proceedings issued and
served before 3 months elapsed from letter of claim) did not merit sanction
because it was clear that their was little prospect of serious settlement
negotiations within that period |
|
| Slade v Boyes Turner
Full text |
(SCCO Sept 2003)- whether solicitors to be
allowed hourly rates in excess of rates notified: estimated fees v final
overall bill |
Court Service |
| Indemnity Costs |
Sir Elton John & Others v Price Waterhouse & Haydon
Full text |
CD 12th July 2001- Indemnity costs - refusal
of Part 36 offer |
YAWS |
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd No2
Full text |
CA 20th June 2001 - Indemnity costs not penal
in nature |
YAWS |
Brawley v Marcznski
Full text |
CA 0th October 2002 - Legal aid status no
bar to seeking costs on indemnity basis |
Bailii |
Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury
Judgment |
CA 12th June 2002- Costs on indemnity basis
appropriate when opponents conduct takes case"out of norm" |
LC-uk |
Somatra v Sinclair Roche & Temperley
Full text(PDF) |
QBD 15th October 2002- Another indemnity
costs case but here no suggestion of breach of CPR or refusal to mediate
or accept Part 36 offer. The Court simply did not like the way in which
the Defendants presented their case.
Mr Justice Morrison - " There is, I think, a difference between fighting
a case firmly and properly and fighting a case on the basis of a wholesale
attack on the integrity of the Defendants former clients without justification..........This
method of fighting the case was unreasonable and totally uncalled for and
makes it one where an order for indemnity costs is appropriate"
|
LC-uk |
Victor Kermit Kiam v MGN Ltd
Full text |
QBD 6th Feb 2002 - Whilst the prospect of
an indemnity costs order is an incentive to Claimants to make a Part 36
offer (which if rejected and the Claimants beat their own offer they can
reasonably expect) such incentive does not apply to Defendants |
LC-uk |
Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques
SC (Claimant) v (1)Wyatt Co (UK)Ltd(2)Watson Wyatt Partners(a firm) (3)Watson
Wyatt Sarl (Defendants):(1)Wyatt Co (UK)Ltd (2)Watson Wyatt Partners (a
firm)(3)Watson Wyatt Sarl (Part 20 Claimants) v Maxwll Bentley (a firm)
(Part 20 Defendants)
Judgment
Read CMS Cameron
McKenna's article
|
Issues that arose were: (i) whether MB (a
wholly successful Defendant) should be deprived of any part of its costs
because it declined to participate in mediations before trial; (ii) whether
the costs payable by the Part 20 claimant ('WW') should be on the standard
or indemnity basis; (iii) the level of an interim payment on account of
costs; and (iv) whether WW should have permission to appeal from the decision
in the main judgment. |
LC-uk |
Hurst v Leeming
Judgment |
Costs : Refusal to mediate : justification:costs
already incurred : character and attitude of claimant : prospects of success
of mediation |
LC-uk |
(1) DR GEORGE NASKARIS (2) GREYSTONE PARTNERSHIP GROUP INC
v (1) ANS PLC (2) ROBERT FREDERICK KING & ORS (2002)
Judgment |
Ch.D (Blackburne J) 26/7/2002 Claimants who
discontinued an action were ordered to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity
basis for the period in which they acted unreasonably in trying to delay
the trial of the action. |
Indemnity Csts |
P&O Nedlloyd BV v Utaniko Ltd (EWCA-19th February 2003)
Full text |
A Part 36 offer to settle proceedings
did not extend to a subsequent appeal. Costs on appeal awarded on a standard
basis and not entitled to costs on an indemnity basis in the absence of
a further Part 36 offer specifically relating to the appeal |
LC-uk |
| Miscellaneous |
Alpacas Ltd v Sir John Wilsey
Full Text |
SCCO - 25th Jul 2003 - case on the interpretation
of a consent order- whether costs of action included costs of counterclaim
- it did |
Court Service |
Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd
Full text |
SCCO 11th Apr 2003- Costs v LSC- order that
LSC pay costs of appeal- argued (and lost) that the LSC could only be responsible
for costs incurred after the date public funding extended to the appeal |
Court Service |
Ahmed v Powell (SCCO -19th February 2003
Full text |
Costs Negotiators Grants
refused right of audience on detailed assessment as their instructions (standing
arrangement with insurers) put them too far removed from the instructions
of an "authorised litigator". Further that their remuneration arrangements
with insurers was champertous. We have the full text of the judgment courtesy
of the Claimants Solicitors Messsrs Amelans and provided by Messrs Farnworths
of Burnley and Kenilworth
|
Client submitted |
Woodings & Others v British telecommunications PLC - Mayor
and City of London County Court - 7th February 2003
Judgment(link repaired- our apologies |
A County Court judgment
but nonetheless a strong reminder that stonewalling is no longer an option
for Defendants even in low value claims and can have serious costs consequences.
Claimants actions for personal injury damages setled for less than £1000
were entitled to assessment of their costs on a standard basis due to the
high level (and expense) of technical and medical evidence required and
where the defendants had failed to cooperate in finding a costs efficient
manner in dealing with the expensive problem of proving causation.
|
LC-uk |
Higgs v Camden & Islington Health Authority
Full text (PDF) |
Complex high value (£3.5 million)
clinical negligence case. Rates of £300 per hour for the solicitors and
£350 for counsel upheld although not to be taken as the "norm" |
LC-uk |
Factortame & Others v Sec of State for Transport
Full text |
Court of Appeal 3rd July 2002 - Agreement
to pay Accountants fees at 8% of final settlement not champertous |
YAWS |
Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd v Nelsons (a firm)
Judgment |
SCCO 28th Aug 2002
salutary reminder to lawyers of the need to keep their clients equally advised
of both costs and new developments in a case as part of their general duties.
|
Lawzone |
Mulrenan v Jardinerie Ltd
Judgment |
District Judge Exton also allowed a single
letter written by the Claimant’s Solicitor to the relevant AEI Insurance
Company, Amicus Legal Ltd. District Judge Exton allowed this routine letter
on the basis that, "Without insurance with a CFA this Claimant would have
been deprived of access to the courts" |
Lawzone |
Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para Protect Europe Ltd
Judgment |
An intellectual property case.
"It was neither unjust nor unfair to permit a party to recover
a reasonable sum in respect of expert services performed by its employees
which, if done by someone who was not an employee, would have been recoverable
as an item of costs."
|
CMS Cameron McKenna |
Dunnett v Raltrack
Judgment |
Note on costs where successful Defendant
had refused ADR |
YAWS |
Ralph Hulme Garry v Gwillim
Judgment
Full text (PDF)
|
CA 22nd October 2002
insufficient narrative in bill: whether bills bona fide & enforceable -
Solicitors Act 1974ss64
Court of Appeal recommends providing your client a copy of your computer
time record
|
ICLR |
Macdonald v Taree Holdings Ltd
Judgment |
ChD: Neuberger J: 7 December 2000 COSTS —Summary
assessment — Appeal to High Court — Failure to serve costs schedule within
time — Refusal by deputy district judge to grant costs — Whether decision
appropriate — Whether appropriate on appeal to make assessment in respect
of costs below— Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pt 44 |
LC-uk |
Byrne v Sefton Health Authority
Judgment |
CA - 22nd Nov 2000 - COSTS — Wasted costs
order — Party's former solicitors — Solicitors consulted by claimant but
failing to initiate action — Proceedings later issued out of time by other
solicitors but dismissed on limitation grounds — Whether court having jurisdiction
to make wasted costs orders against former solicitors — Supreme Court Act
1981, s 51(6) (as inserted by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 4)
|
LC-uk |
| available at The
Court Service or here (PDF doc)
|
SCCO publishes (23rd Sept) "Costs Guidance"
|
The Court Service |
MITCHELL & ORS v RON JAMES & ORS (2002)
Judgment |
ILR 18/7/2002 Costs orders were not relevant
to deciding whether a judgment was more advantageous than if a CPR Part
36 offer had been accepted. Only the substantive issues should be considered. |
LC-uk |
Afrika & Others v Cape PLC: XY & Z & Otrs v Schering Health
Care Ltd: Sayers & Otrs v Merck & Smithkline Beecham PLC
Full text |
CA - 21st Dec 01 - The MMR/MR vaccine litigation.
Important guidance on costs in multi party action particularly in relation
to "settlers" and "discontinuers" |
YAWS |
Littman v Costa & Anothr
Judgment |
Chd - 18th Nov 2002 -Where a master ordered
that a claimant pay the defendants' costs of setting aside default judgments,
the master should have made an allowance in the costs order for the fact
that the claimant had been partly successful as the master had considered
that the defendants' two principal strands of defence did not have a real
hope of success. |
LC-ukS |
New Summary Assessment Rates
Here |
New Summary assessment rates for
all areas of England & Wales |
Courtesy of Legal Budgets via Lawzone |
