Author: Daniel Murray

Costs in Trust Disputes: Key Insights from Seymour v Ragley Trust

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

The High Court’s decision in William Francis Seymour v Ragley Trust Company Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3400 (Ch) serves as a vital reminder of the difficulties faced by unsuccessful parties in displacing the general rule that the losing party pays the costs of the successful party. This case not only carries significant implications for family-estate and trust law but also reinforces the stringent requirements for overturning the usual costs order, i.e. the unsuccessful party pay the costs of the successful party,  particularly in the context of beneficiary disputes.

Background

In this case, the Claimant, who is the Earl of Yarmouth,  sought the removal of the existing trustees of the Ragley family trusts, aiming to replace them with independent professional trustees. After his claim was dismissed, the Claimant sought to displace the standard costs rule, arguing that he had experienced partial success and that the conduct of the Defendants warranted a different outcome under CPR 44.2(2)(a).

The Claimant contended that the costs of all of the parties should be paid out of the trust assets, alternatively that an order should be made for a payment of only a proportion of the Defendants’ costs, of no more than 50%.

The Categorisation of Trust Litigation and Costs

At the outset of his judgment, Master Brightwell provided a useful summary of the key principles governing costs in trust disputes, drawing on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Price v Saundry [2019] EWCA Civ 2261 and the longstanding authority of Re Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406. These principles divide trust litigation into three main categories:

  1. Trustee Applications for Court Guidance
    • Trustees seek judicial assistance on matters such as trust interpretation or administration.
    • The costs of all parties are typically paid from the trust fund, as the estate is the primary beneficiary.
  2. Non-Trustee Applications
    • An outsider (e.g. a beneficiary or other interested party) seeks guidance that could have been requested by the trustees.
    • Costs are treated in the same way as trustee applications, with payments typically made from the trust fund.
  3. Beneficiary Disputes
    • A beneficiary makes a hostile claim against trustees or other beneficiaries.
    • This is treated like common law litigation, with costs generally following the event.

It was not seriously disputed that this case fell into the third category: a beneficiary dispute. The Claimant had brought a “root and branch” attack on the trustees’ conduct, which was clearly hostile in nature.

The Claimant’s Attempts to Displace the usual Costs Rule

Partial Success

The Claimant’s argument regarding partial success was based on the fact that he had succeeded in achieving a change in the composition of the directors of the trust companies. However, this argument was swiftly dismissed by the Court. Master Brightwell referenced earlier correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitors, which indicated that the appointment of a fourth director did not have any significant value or impact on the administration of the trust. As such, the partial success argument did not carry any weight. The application of an issue based order was dismissed, on the grounds that the Court must also be able to identify, at least in broad brush or in general terms, a part or proportion of the costs of the unsuccessful party which were incurred because of the unreasonable conduct which is complained about.

Conduct of the Parties

The Claimant also sought to challenge the Defendants’ conduct during the litigation. Specifically, he argued that the trustees had acted unreasonably by vigorously defending the allegations made against them, despite suggestions that they were open to stepping down or being removed from their positions. He also pointed to the fact that the trustees did not personally attend a settlement meeting, implying a lack of engagement.

However, the Court rejected these submissions. Master Brightwell noted that in beneficiary disputes, where allegations of misconduct are dismissed, the general costs rule is the starting point. Had the allegations been substantiated, the situation would have been different. There would have been strong arguments in favour of the trustees losing their indemnity from the trust assets and possibly being required to pay the Claimant’s costs. However, as the allegations were not proven, the trustees were entitled to defend themselves fully, and no misconduct was found.

Quantum and the Claimant’s Procedural Challenges

In addition to the issues of partial success and conduct, the Claimant raised concerns about the quantum of costs. Specifically, he questioned the fairness of the costs given that the claim had been brought under the Part 8 procedure, which did not involve the cross-examination of witnesses. The Judge noted that these concerns were a matter for detailed assessment rather than something that should automatically reduce the costs. Consequently, the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendants’ costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

Indemnity from Trust Assets

The judgment also addressed the issue of indemnity for the trustees. Master Brightwell confirmed that, to the extent the costs were not recovered from the Claimant (whether due to an assessment down or non-recovery), the trustees were entitled to an indemnity from the trust assets. This was to be given effect by the trustees having their costs assessed on the indemnity basis, ensuring that they could recover their legal fees from the trust fund.

Key Takeaways for Trust Litigation and Costs

  1. Costs in Beneficiary Disputes: In beneficiary disputes, the general rule is that costs will follow the event. Even if a Claimant achieves some minor or peripheral benefit from the litigation, unless that translates into substantive relief, they are likely to bear the costs of the successful parties.
  2. No Leniency for Conduct: A party’s conduct during proceedings will rarely alter the costs order unless there is clear misconduct. Trustees defending claims against them are entitled to act robustly without the risk of bearing the costs, provided their actions are not unreasonable.
  3. Indemnity for Trustees: Trustees who successfully defend claims will usually be indemnified from the trust fund for their costs, provided they act in good faith. This indemnity ensures that trustees are not financially burdened by their legal fees when defending their position in the trust.
  4. Cost Assessments: Even if a Claimant challenges the quantum of costs, this will be dealt with at the assessment stage, not as a reduction in costs as a matter of principle.
  5. Issue Based Costs Orders: Parties seeking issue based costs orders, must be prepared to substantiate their arguments, so the Court can make an informed decision.

The case highlights the importance of understanding the nuanced rules surrounding costs in trust litigation, especially for beneficiaries considering challenging trustees. The default position remains clear: losing a claim means paying the costs, and partial success or the conduct of the parties is unlikely to alter that outcome unless specific conditions are met.

Daniel Murray is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Strike Out and Multiple Defendant Costs Entitlement: Clarifying the effects of both under Post-September 2023 Fixed Costs Rules

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

District Judge Field, sitting in the County Court at Truro, has delivered perhaps the most interesting and seminal judgment of the new fixed costs era.

In MIL Collections Limited v My Shop 4 Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCC 38 (04 July 2025), the Court was asked to consider whether each of the 13 Defendants were entitled to fixed costs where the Claimant’s case was struck out for non-compliance with an Unless Order. The quantum of those costs was also considered, given events which meant determination of the award was not straightforward.

Case Facts

The Claimant was a company, whose business involved the purchase and recovery of debts. In late 2024, they had taken an assignment of debts owing by commercial entities to E.on Next Energy Ltd (‘Eon’). The debts varied in size.

Multiple claims were issued, which were transferred, piecemeal, to the County Court at Truro. In each case the Claimant had served a short template Particulars of Claim, and in many instances similar issues were being raised in Defence.. In the interests of the overriding objective, the decision was taken by the Court to manage the cases together, with the case allocated to the Fast Track and assigned to Band 1.

It later became apparent that multiple Defendants were co-ordinating their approach to the litigation and an identical Defence was being filed by each of them. All 13 Defendants in this case, had adopted this approach and thus an order was made on 28 April 2025 consolidating each of their cases and providing a tight timetable to trial.

Directions were subsequently given in several cases, which amongst other things, required the Claimant to file better Particulars of Claim, within 14 days of the order. In this case, this was to be by 13 May 2025, something the Claimant did adhere to. However, the Court took the preliminary view that the pleadings were still deficient and that unless order had not been complied with.

A hearing was listed to take place on 21 May 2025, to consider whether the claim had been or should be struck out. In the intervening period, the court sent out a notice dated 19 May 2025, listing a two day trial to take place across 14 and 15 July 2025. This is one of the first notes of interest in this case, on the basis that traditionally, as per the factors considered for allocation, matters will not usually be allocated to the Fast Track when the trial is expected to last no longer than one day. Here the Court exercised the discretion available to it pursuant to CPR PD 26 16.3(c), to still determine the case was not suitable for the Intermediate or Multi Track.

Until 19 May 2025, the Defendants had all been Litigants in Person, however, the 12th and 13th Defendants sought representation shortly before the final hearing. At the hearing on 21 May 2025, the Claimant accepted that there had been a breach of the unless order and that, consequently, the claim had been automatically struck out on 13 May 2025. The Claimant made an application for relief from sanction on the evening of 20 May 2025. Most of the hearing on 21 May 2025 was therefore concerned with the application for relief, which was dismissed.

The Parties’ Positions

At the conclusion of the hearing, the 12th and 13th Defendants sought their costs of the hearing pursuant to CPR 45.8 in accordance with Table 1 of PD45. These were determined at the hearing on 21 May.

With regards to the substantive litigation, the 12th and 13th Defendants sought fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45.44 and Table 12 of PD45 following the strike out of the claim; and the 1st to 11th Defendants each sought two thirds of the fixed costs in Table 12, pursuant to CPR 45(2)(a).

Due to a shortage of time, written submissions were ordered on the issues in relation to costs which were:

  1. The extent to which the fixed costs provisions apply at all in relation to a claim which is struck out;
  2. The applicable amount of fixed costs and the appropriate stage in Table 12 of Practice Direction 45
  3. Whether, where there is more than one defendant, each defendant is entitled to recover fixed costs in their own respect.
  4. Any entitlement to fixed costs in respect of unrepresented parties.

A.) The extent to which the fixed costs provisions apply at all in relation to a claim which is struck out

There was no dispute between the parties in relation to the allocation or assignment of the matter, which is traditionally a battleground on the new fixed costs regime. The Claimant here did dispute however, that there was an entitlement to costs by the Defendants, based on the specific wording in Table 12 of PD 45, which stipulates costs are payable where a claim “settles or discontinues“. There are also provisions for costs where the matter is disposed of at trial, which did not apply here. It was asserted that none of these conditions had been triggered and therefore no costs should be awarded. It was suggested by the Claimant that any liability should extend only as far as the interim application costs outlined in Table 1 of PD 45.

The Defendants’ position was that the triggers in terms of when an award for costs can be made, was non-exhaustive in Table 12 and that it would be an “absurdity” if a party whose case is struck out would escape liability for costs which would have flowed from, for instance, a discontinuance.

The Court dismissed the Claimant’s approach, confirming that the Table 12(B) did not contain an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it applied. The Court went further, confirming that “those drafting the rules have clearly gone to extensive efforts to ensure that the fixed costs rules and Practice Direction address most circumstances and permutations, it cannot have been expected or intended that they would expressly deal with every possible circumstance which might arise in such a wide range of cases. The rules must be construed widely and purposefully.”

The Defendants were therefore entitled to costs of the action on accordance with Table 12.

B.) The applicable amount of fixed costs and the appropriate stage in Table 12 of Practice Direction 45

Given the listing of the trial in the intervening period between the deemed automatic strike out and the hearing on 21 May 2025, there was a dispute as to which was the applicable stage in Table 12 of PD 45. This was namely whether the matter fell into stage 2 which applies to case ‘from allocation up to listing for trial’; or stage 3, which applies to case ‘after listing but before the trial.’

The 12th and 13th Defendant’s drew  a distinction between the “listing” of a trial and the “fixing” of a trial. They submitted that stage 3 costs should apply, on the basis that case are traditionally listed in a floating window, with a fixed start date listed afterwards. Reference was made to guidance in the Chancery guide.

The Court found difficulties in accepting this approach, given that in the vast majority of Fast Track cases, the first case management order will provide for both allocation and provision for the trial to be listed either within a window or on the first available date after a particular date.

It was therefore determined that stage 2 costs applied.

C.) Whether, where there is more than one defendant, each defendant is entitled to recover fixed costs in their own respect.

The arguments here arose because of the ambiguity in CPR 45 regarding the position. Where there are multiple Claimants, the position is much clearer and the rules provide for the recovery of 25% of costs where additional Claimants are represented by the same firm of Solicitors.

After deliberation of several factors, including the position on cases allocated to the Multi Track, whereby Defendants are each entitled to their own costs, and the fact that had the  rule makers intended to deviate substantially from principles which would ordinarily apply in respect of costs, this would have been dealt with expressly in the rules, the Court determined that each Defendant was entitled to their fixed costs as set out in Table 12 of PD45. This was subject to the Court’s discretion to make an order under CPR 44.2(6)(a) that a party pay only a proportion of another party’s costs. The Court did not believe the fact that an award of two sets of fixed costs might produce a windfall for the Defendants was a relevant circumstance which should carry significant weight.

D.) Any entitlement to fixed costs in respect of unrepresented parties

Having determined that the individual Defendants were entitled to costs of the claim, the final issue to be determined by the Court was the position regarding the Defendants’ status as Litigants in Person and the level of entitlement.

CPR 45.4 deals with the position in relation to recoverable costs of Litigants in Person on the fixed costs regime, and confirms the application of CPR 46.5, which in turn confirms that Litigants in person are entitled to the same categories of costs and disbursements as represented parties, payments reasonably made by the litigant in person for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim. Where a party is a litigant in person throughout the entire claim, the costs allowed under this rule shall not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement. The amount to be claimed will be done so where the litigant can prove financial loss and is calculated at a rate of £19 p/h.

In the case of the 12th and 13th Defendants, the Court determined swiftly that, although they were acting as litigants in person as at the date of strike out, witness statement evidence of their representatives confirmed that prior to that, they had been acting for the Defendants by assisting in the drafting of the Defendant and working on an Amended Defence to the Amended Particulars of Claim.

The costs claimed by them were therefore deemed reasonable costs for legal services related to the conduct of the litigation and are therefore allowed under CPR 46.5(3)(b), subject to the two thirds cap referenced above.

The position in relation to the remaining Defendants was less clear. There was nothing to suggest that they were liable to representatives for fees and there was no evidence of financial losses. Invitations were made by those Defendants, for an award in line with that made in favour of the 12th and 13th Defendants.

However, the Court had difficulty in finding that the remaining Defendants had spent 91 hours engaging with the litigation, which was the number of hours that would have been required at the rate of £19 p/h to reach the level of costs awarded to the represented 12th and 13th Defendants. 7 hours was deemed reasonable and awarded to the 1st to 11th Defendants.

The Defendants sought an uplift of 50% on their costs in accordance with CPR 45.13 because of the Claimant’s conduct in the manner in which they pursued the claims.  The Court again refused this on the basis that the Claimant had already been penalised through the striking out of the claim and there was no evidence to support how the costs had been increased as a result of the Claimant’s conduct.

Summary

The decision is well thought out and provides useful guidance on numerous issues under the new extended fixed costs regime. It further exemplifies the Court’s discretion in terms of allocation and assignment of cases that may well have landed themselves on another track in view of the trial length and combined value. Further, the closing comments confirm a burden on receiving party’s to provide evidence in support of claims for additional sums pursuant to CPR 45.13 because of alleged poor conduct.

In conclusion, where a Claimant’s case is struck out against multiple defendants, each Defendant is entitled to recover their costs on an individual basis. It is essential that a specific trial date has been set, prior to the claim concluding to engage the fixed costs regime under stage 3 of Table 12 CPR PD 45, even if the trial itself does not take place. Furthermore, litigants in person are entitled to recover upto two-thirds of the costs awarded to legally represented parties, ensuring fair but proportionate remuneration for their time and effort in defending the claim. But this must be evidenced.

 Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Department who can be contacted on any fixed costs issues, at our dedicated fixed costs email address at FRC@clarionsolicitors.com.

Fixed Costs Determination Process: An overview and points of discussion

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

The Fixed Costs Determination process (FCD), which was proposed within Lord Justice Jackson’s infamous review of civil litigation costs in 2017, is to be finally implemented on 1 October this year. 1 year on from the implementation of his other expansive recommendations and the extension of the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime.

There was initially some optimism within the legal costs world, that the process would not be implemented when it was omitted from the new rules. However, minutes from the CPRC meetings, released over the last 10 months or so, revealed an intention to implement the new streamlined process this year.

The procedure for the new process, which will be incorporated into CPR 45.63 to CPR 45.66 has been published in Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2024 and 171st update – Practice Directions amendments. The new Precedent U, which will be completed by receiving parties as part of the process has also been released for review.

How does the process operate?

Determination after a hearing

The new process will require any party who intends to claim any fixed costs or disbursements in a case captured by CPR 45, to file at court and serve on any party against whom an order for payment is intended to be sought a completed Precedent U. This new document must include, if applicable, the details of any claim under rule 45.9, rule 45.10 or rule 45.13, and is to be filed and served no later than 24 hours before the time fixed for the hearing. This is a slight variation on the current rules in relation to final hearings, where statements must be filed at Court 48 hours prior to the hearing commencing.

The Court may then summarily assess the costs, or if it is unable to make a summary determination at the hearing, then it may order a determination on paper, or a further hearing and make any directions it sees fit. The costs of that determination will be treated as an interim application and costs limited under CPR 45.8. Those costs currently amount to £250 plus VAT on cases which are assigned to bands 1-3 of the Fast Track, and £333 plus VAT on cases which are assigned to band 4 of the Fast Track or allocated to the Intermediate Track.

Determination where parties agree on all issues except costs

Where the parties have reached agreement on all issues except costs, then the receiving party may make an application for those costs to be determined under the new streamlined process. On an issued matter, this will be by way of a Part 23 application as is the current procedure when a fixed costs dispute arises.

On an unissued matter, the application will be made when Part 8 costs only proceedings are commenced pursuant to CPR 46.14.

Applications, whether on issued or unissued matters, should be supported by the written agreement or confirmation, together with a completed Precedent U containing details of the costs or disbursements to which the applicant claims to be entitled and, if applicable, the details of any claim under rule 45.9 (a claim for costs exceeding fixed costs as a result of exceptional circumstances), rule 45.10 (a claim for costs exceeding fixed costs as a result of vulnerability of the Claimant or a witness), or rule 45.13 a claim for costs exceeding fixed costs as a result of unreasonable behaviour).

Any evidence in response from the paying party must be filed within 21 days of service of the application on issued matters, and within 21 days of filing the acknowledgment of service where proceedings have not been started.

The determination may then take place on papers or at a final hearing, but regardless, the fees recoverable will be limited to £500 plus VAT as set out in Table 17 of the soon to be amended Practice Direction 45, plus any relevant application fees.

Appealing outcomes

The Court will record its decision by annotating the Precedent U document and the parties will have 21 days from service of the decision to appeal the outcome. If an application is made, then a hearing will be held to determine the issues, and the applicant must achieve an outcome at least 20% more favourable to them, otherwise they will be liable for the costs of and incidental to the hearing. These costs will, however, be limited again to those outlined in CPR 45.8.

Final key points

Where a party seeks an assessment of costs because of exceptional circumstances, vulnerability, or where the matter settles at S.1 on the Intermediate Track and is a non-PI matter, then the Court has the power to give directions that those costs can be assessed in conjunction with the fixed costs determination.

Part 36 consequences are disapplied from the process.

Discussion

Those of us involved in fixed costs dispute know that currently, the process can be a drawn out, expensive and disproportionate exercise. A streamlined process, designed specifically to deal with what is likely to be largely disbursement disputes is to be welcomed.

It is interesting that the base figure allowed for the process (a maximum of £500), has not been uplifted for inflation, in the same way that those costs tables were. When fees are broken down into hours, the process allows for less than 4 hours of Grade D band 2 time for preparing a statement and written submissions, as well as attempting to agree costs before an application is made. That is not withstanding the fact that submissions in relation to costs exceeding fixed costs can be technically complex and arguably justify the input of more experienced fee earners.

Further limitations on fees recoverable where the Court does not determine costs at the final hearing also seems a harsh added stipulation, with a maximum of £333 recoverable, to include a potential attendance at a hearing.

By disapplying the consequences of Part 36 from the process, there appears to be little by way of incentive for parties to reach agreement. This is exacerbated by the fact that the adverse costs exposure if decisions are unsuccessfully appealed, is limited to less than £400. The provisional assessment process, which currently captures most cases that will proceed through this process after its implementation, removes its cap on recoverable fees when initial outcomes are appealed. A mechanism that operates as a real deterrent for zealous challenges.

As things stand, this new process would not apply to cases to which the fixed costs implemented on 1 October 2023 apply. This seems something which could and perhaps should be rectified prior to the rules coming into effect and requires clarification.

Finally, the interplay between requests for assessment of fees above fixed costs and the new process remain unclear. Whilst it is noted that there is the possibility for both the new process and detailed assessment to run in conjunction, how this will operate is still uncertain.

For further information on the process, or assistance once it is implemented please contact Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Department who can be contacted on any fixed costs issues, at our dedicated fixed costs email address at FRC@clarionsolicitors.com.

The door to third party assessments pushed opened by the Court of Appeal…. Or is it?

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

The door to third party assessments pushed opened by the Court of Appeal…. Or is it?

The Court of Appeal has delivered judgment in the case of Thomson Snell & Passmore v Kenig [2024] EWCA Civ 15. The case concerned two important issues, namely, whether a beneficiary may obtain an order for an assessment of Solicitor’s costs, pursuant to S.71(3) Solicitors Act 1974, and the extent of such assessment.

Background to Third Party Assessments

Section 71 (1) and (3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 make provision for the assessment of a Solicitor’s bill of costs by a party other than the party chargeable with the bill.

The provisions differ, with S.71 (1) dealing essentially with applications by third parties who wish to challenge costs which they are ultimately liable for because of a contractual relationship. Whereas S.71(3) deals with applications by third parties who are beneficiaries of an estate or trustees, and to whom a fiduciary duty is owed.

It is worth highlighting at this point that the provisions of S.70 Solicitors Act are also relevant for the purpose of third party Assessments. This is in respect of the timescales they place on individuals challenging a bill of costs. Pursuant to S.71(4), the Court shall have regard to these under any S.71 application, in so far as they are capable of being applied.   

The First Instance decision

The application for assessment was brought by Mr Kenig, who, along with another individual, was beneficiary to a will. The administrator of the estate had appointed his own firm of Solicitors to deal with the administration of the estate and had subsequently paid bills which were delivered, in the total sum of £54,410.99 from the estate funds. The last bill had been paid 8 months prior to Mr Kenig’s application, but others had been paid more than 12 months before his application.

Mr Kenig sought to challenge the fees, but his attempts were rebutted, on the grounds that the decision in Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 1574, limited the scope of any assessment and therefore any such assessment would be fruitless and should not be allowed. That decision dealt with an application made pursuant to S.71(1), and arose as a result of a contractual relationship. It established that the approach to these assessments was very narrow and with regards to quantification of a bill, it only allowed an assessing judge to apply a ‘blue pencil’ approach and eliminate only items which fell outside of the scope of the retainer, or which would only be allowable on a special arrangement basis between a Solicitor and Client.

At first instance, Costs Judge Brown distinguished the decision in Tim Martin and ordered that there were ‘special circumstances’ for allowing an assessment of the bills.  He instead felt bound by the historic decision in re Brown (1867) LR 4 Eq 464, which had permitted an assessment of fees by a trustee of a will under the provisions of S.38 of the Solicitors Act 1843, which had essentially become S.71(3) of the 1974 Act.

Key to his decision were several factors. Namely:

  • Lloyd LJ in Tim Martin dealt only with an application conducted under S.71(1) and where S. 71(1) provides limitations on the Court, akin to S.70, S.71(3) placed no such limitations and provided wider discretion
  • There is a material difference between cases in which the legal relations between the person chargeable with the bill and the third parties are ones of contract, and those where fiduciary duties are owed to beneficiaries or trustees.
  • Discrepancies in the case between initial fee estimates and the final charges required justification, and even if Tim Martin was directly applicable, there would still be a realistic prospect that material deductions might be made from the Solicitors’ bills

This was appealed by the Solicitors, on the grounds that the Costs Judge Brown had erred in distinguishing Tim Martin. Other grounds were refused permission or dropped.

The Appeal

At the appeal hearing, Lord Justice Stuart – Smith, with support from Lord Justice Nugee and Lord Justice Coulson , upheld the decision of the High Court, that the Courts were not bound by the principles in Tim Martin in relation to S.71(3) applications, and any observations about that section, or the historic provisions of it’s predecessor S.39 of the 1843 Act were obiter.

Lord Justice Stuart – Smith continued and confirmed that “there are material differences between applications under section 71(3) and those under section 71(1) because of the different nature of the interests of the third party that the different sub sections are intended to reflect. The consequence of Lloyd LJ’s mistaken assumption is that his judgment cannot be relied upon as saying anything authoritative about the position that obtains where an application and assessment are brought under section 71(3)”.

At paragraph 57 the importance of protecting the interests of the beneficiaries / estate was of the upmost importance, because of the fact the executor / trustee carried no risk because of their ability to pay fees out of estate funds.

Where does it leave us?

The decision, first and foremost, is a positive one for beneficiaries / trustees. Executors / Administrators are often in a professional capacity in these types of cases and choose to instruct other departments within their own firms to carry out the administration of the estate. The rights of beneficiaries who have no input in these appointments, to challenge final fees, seems only fair.

It must be remembered that the appeal was only on two limited grounds, whether the Court was bound to apply the principles in Tim Martin, and as a result that application was fruitless.   In the initial judgment (at paragraph 21), the Costs Judge considered issues in relation to the fact that some of the bills challenged had been paid 12 months previously and decided that the scope of S.71(3) was sufficient to allow him to exercise discretion to allow an assessment in any event. This is not the case where individuals chargeable with the bill seek an assessment, which would not be permitted pursuant to S.70(4).

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith (at paragraphs 54-55) comments on this issue, and whilst confirming that he was hesitant to comment beyond the ground of appeal, did acknowledge that this could be a point of jurisdiction. Could it therefore mean that in future cases, where there is a delay and the Court is asked to consider whether the Court’s requirement to consider the factors of S.70 (pursuant to S.71(4)), then an assessment would be barred? If beneficiaries were informed of these payments as and when they are made, does this strengthen any charging party’s case if taking this point?

The judgment also leaves doubt regarding the effects of fully informed consent and approval on any assessment, given the presumptions in CPR 46.9. Although in this case the Court sided with Mr Kenig’s submissions that informed consent was merely a ‘material factor’ and there should be no hard and fast rule when considering its effect. It was acknowledged that ‘fully informed consent by the executor (if proved) is likely to be a major consideration, which in many cases may prove to be determinative’ [58]. Given that bills were approved and paid, steps beyond this are clearly required to demonstrate approval, but if this can be done, could this also mean an assessment would be fruitless?

Only time will tell if third party assessments will now gather momentum and whether the decision really does extend the scope of any quantum reductions. It seems however, that this is still very much a debate for another day.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at  civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Judicial Review issued in relation to October’s Fixed Costs reforms

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

It has been confirmed that Judicial Review proceedings have been issued by Association of Personal Injury lawyers (APIL), against the Lord Chancellor, in relation to the extended fixed costs rules which are currently due to come into effect on 1 October. Our understanding is that a challenge has been launched in relation to four key grounds:

  • The failure to consult properly on the inclusion of some clinical negligence cases under the extended regime, and specifically when they will apply.
  • The lack of certainty regarding how additional costs incurred because of vulnerable parties is to be dealt with. Including, the fact that no uplift can be applied without an application at the end of a case.
  • The lack of certainty in relation to representation at inquests and how those costs are dealt with.
  • Concerns that the wording of the proposed new CPR 45.1 (3), and the apparent inability of parties to contract out of the extended regime.

All these issues are ones which attracted largely negative commentary in the build up to the implementation of the extended regime. In particular, the lack of clarity as to the timing as to when an admission of breach of duty and causation in a clinical negligence matter might limit a Claimant’s Solicitors to fixed costs. Certainty on all the above is welcomed prior to the implementation of any new rules. Most of the issues are ones which are currently under consultation by the MOJ, with responses to the consultation open until 8 September.

By agreement, the Judicial review proceedings are to be stayed until three weeks after the government responds to the MOJ consultation. Parliament is currently in recess until 4 September, and with just over 5 weeks until the new rules are implemented, there is a race against time to see whether the government pushes ahead with implementation, or perhaps wisely, takes the decision to postpone plans further until key issues are resolved.

For further information on the consultation, please contact Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Department who can be contacted on any fixed costs issues, at our new dedicated fixed costs email addressatFRC@clarionsolicitors.com.

More bumps in the road for Fixed Recoverable Costs extension, as MOJ opens further consultation prior to implementation

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

It was announced on Friday, that the MOJ has opened a consultation which will run to 8 September, with responses invited on a number of key issues which the draft rules either failed to address or were ambiguously drafted in the first instance. Any changes which follow the consultation, are to be introduced in April 2024.

With a little over two months remaining until the planned extension of the fixed costs regime, the further announcement by the MOJ is indicative of the difficult road ahead for litigators and costs practitioners ahead of the implementation on 1 October.

The announcement comes following prior confirmation, that the rules would be amended on the same day that they are brought into effect, via Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2023. The consultation focuses on the following issues:

  • whether costs on assessment should be fixed;

A streamlined cost assessment process, with a cap of £500 was an initial recommendation of Lord Jackson in his 2017 report, but something not addressed in the published draft rules in April of this year.

The MOJ now proposes to implement a regime, whereby the parties would initially attempt to agree costs, failing which, a short form claim form would be filed. This would be followed by replies, and an application for determination by the Court on papers. Costs of the determination would then follow the event, and be capped at £500, inclusive of any Part 36 uplifts.

Satellite costs litigation on the back of the extended regime, is something which is envisaged by most costs practitioners. Disputes regarding the appropriate track / banding when matters settle before allocation, and disputes in relation to disbursements as the regime covers larger cases, are just two of the areas where it is expected that issues will arise post settlement between the parties.

This streamlined regime may be a useful tool in settling disputes without a potentially drawn out process and oral hearings, but the proposals bring into question whether the proposed cap is sufficient to deal with the issues in dispute, especially if it were to be inclusive of a 35% uplift on fees. There appears to be no bite to a sensible Part 36 offer by parties prior to, or early in the process, and therefore no real deterrent for settling costs issues without a streamlined assessment.

If we are to look at the proposed fees for a case which will settle pre-allocation and could be captured in bands 2 or 3, typically a PI claim with liability and quantum in dispute. The difference in base costs between a band 2 case and a band 3 case, is £1,400. A proposed cap of £500 does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent for unjustifiably seeking to restrict a party to the lower fees, or alternatively, seeking the higher fees on borderline cases, and the reward seems to outweigh the risk.

One wonders whether the risks of paying costs on a standard basis would actually better achieve the apparent objective here, which is to deter this satellite costs litigation. The proposed order of steps is also questionable, with the paying party laying out their position first, with no opportunity to respond to the paying party’s submissions or replies. The process envisages a certain level of pre application communication between the parties, whereby the receiving party will already know the paying party’s stance before they serve a short form bill, whereas this will not always necessarily be the case.

  • whether there should be fixed costs for Part 8 (costs only) claims;

A capped fee of £300 is proposed for Part 8 costs only claims, which will be required when cases are settling pre-issue. Similar observations as to the effectiveness of the capped fee as a deterrent to satellite litigation are made here, as above.

  • the recoverability of, separately, (a) inquest costs and (b) restoration proceedings, and how this should be dealt with in the CPR;

Recoverability of inquest costs is a common dispute for those dealing with cases under Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It was recently decided in the case of Briley & Ors v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust & Ors [2023] EWHC 1470, that fees incurred dealing with pre-inquest reviews are recoverable on an inter partes basis.

The costs of attending such hearings, can be significant and greatly in excess of the fees which are to be recoverable on the new extended fixed costs regime. It is therefore proposed costs of attending inquests should be recovered separately on the fast and intermediate tracks, with costs being subject to assessment in the usual manner.

Currently, the only provisions for fees associated with restoration proceedings in the new regime, are in relation to NIHL claims, and are outlined in CPR 45.56. Solicitors will be able to claim an additional sum of £1,280, plus disbursements for carrying out this work. The consultation proposes that similar provisions are made for other cases in the new intermediate track.

  • the issue of providing for the recoverability of advocates’ preparation in the CPR, in cases which (a) are settled late or (b) are vacated; and
  • whether the fixed trial advocacy fees now in Practice Direction (PD) 45 of the CPR should be further uprated for inflation, and by how much;

The Bar Council has suggested that in cases settled or removed from the list on the day of trial, the full trial advocacy fee should be recoverable; and in cases settled or removed from the list within two working days of the date fixed for trial, 75% of the full trial advocacy fee should be recoverable. These proposals were not covered in Lord Jacksons 2017 report, but the MOJ considers these proposals have merit and invites stakeholder comment.

With regards to inflationary uplifts, The Bar Council and PIBA argue that there has been no uprating of the fixed trial advocacy fees since July 2013, and that the fixed trial advocacy fees in complexity bands 1-3 of the fast track (Table 12, CPR 45.44) should be uprated from then using the SPPI index.

It is also proposed that the trial advocacy fees in complexity band 4 of the fast track should be uprated by around 20%. The same uplift is suggested in intermediate track cases.   The MOJ does not see the merit in the proposed 20% uplift, but do propose that trial advocacy fees on the fast track, for complexity bands 1-3, will be increased via the SPPI to take into account inflationary increases between 2013 and 2016 (by 4%); and to inflate further for the 9 months between January and October 2023 all of the FRC figures covered by Lord Jackson, which would include the uprated fixed trial advocacy fee figures.  

(vi) whether to make explicit in CPR 26.9(10)(b) in respect of clinical negligence claims, that an early admission of liability must be made in the pre-action protocol letter of response.

This issue is one which in our view, required early address by way of satellite litigation once the new rules were in place, and its proposed review is one which should be welcomed.

Within Lord Jackson’s 2017 report, it was initially proposed that clinical negligence cases would only be captured by the fixed costs regime, where admissions of breach of duty and causation were made within the letter of response. With the Department of Health and Social Care’s 2022 consultation on fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence matters, the inclusion of fixed costs in any clinical negligence matters was one which took a lot of people by surprise when the draft rules were published in April.

The absence that any admission should be made within the letter of response, was one which opened the door for significant work being incurred by Claimant’s Solicitors prior to allocation, in the belief the matter would be allocated to the Multi Track, which would not necessarily be remunerated if an admission were to be made prior to the allocation date.

It also brought into question, whether applications for re-allocation / assignment, would be made by Defendant’s if an admission was made after allocation. Under the proposed new rules, the effect of this reallocation would mean only the costs of the final allocated track would be recoverable for the entirety of the claim, leaving the Claimant with an even greater potential significant shortfall in recoverable costs.

It is proposed that there is now the added requirement for an early admission to be made in cases where the cause of action is 1 October or afterwards before a case can be allocated to the intermediate track. The MOJ point out that it is unlikely that any new clinical negligence claims, where the cause of action accrues on or after 1 October, will be subject to early admission and allocation to track in advance of 1 April 2024.

However, the fact that it remains a possibility, albeit a slim one, raises the question as to why the rule is not amended prior to 1 October.   Further Points: Inflation The MOJ has further announced that, whilst inflation remains high they will provide further exceptional uprating to the fixed costs regimes, with figures to be uplifted further to cover inflation since January 2023. Whilst this is a welcomed announcement, it raises the question as top why the same measures cannot also be applied for existing fixed costs figures in portal matters, which are also outlined in PD 45, and have not been reviewed since 2013, when they were decreased from existing figures.  

Final Comments

Overall, the consultation must be welcomed as it will address some crucial flaws in the draft rules. However, some of the proposals still require further revisions, otherwise they will not meet the goals they set out to achieve.

With this being the second acknowledgment that the rules are by no means fit for purpose in their current draft, following from the amendments announced by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2023, it also raises the question as to why their implementation cannot be pushed back further, in order to iron out at least a few more of the apparent wrinkles. Readers are strongly urged to respond to the consultation and can do so by sending responses to FRCconsultation@justice.gov.uk by 8 September.    

The consultations will be discussed at our free fixed costs seminar on 6 September. The seminar will focus key issues in relation to the new rules, including practical guidance on the new banding and allocation rules. Click here for more information and to register to attend.

For further information on the consultation, please contact Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Department who can be contacted on any fixed costs issues, at our new dedicated fixed costs email address at FRC@clarionsolicitors.com.

Access to Justice Prevails : Court of Appeal rules that Translator Fees for Trial are recoverable in Fixed Costs Cases

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

In a significant ruling for litigators who deal with cases captured by the current fixed costs regimes, the Court of Appeal in Santiago v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2023] EWCA Civ 838 has ruled that the fees of a translator or interpreter were recoverable in a case which settled on the morning of Trial.

Background

The dispute regarding the recoverability of the fees was one which arose following a successful personal injury claim brought by Mr Santiago, a Brazilian national who spoke Portuguese. His claim had been brought under Section IIIA of CPR 45 (those falling outside of the Pre-Action Protocol). At first instance, Deputy District Judge Sneddon, felt constrained by the Court’s previous decision in Cham (A Child) v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780, [2020] 1 WLR 1276, and disallowed the fees, whilst acknowledging that her instinct told her otherwise. Permission to appeal was subsequently granted.

The Court in Cham, a case in which the central issue was the recoverability of Counsel fees for advice, had determined that in cases progressing under Section IIIA of CPR Part 45, those advice fees were not recoverable as a disbursement under CPR45.29I(h), which permits recovery of a disbursement which is “reasonably incurred due to a particular feature of the dispute.” Lord Justice Coulson, sitting in that matter, had went on to summarise that whether the Claimant was a child, or an individual who could not speak English, then those features were a characteristic of the Claimant, not the dispute, and therefore any provision for recovery of such fees were accounted for in the sums allowed for fixed profit costs, and no additional sums should be allowed as a disbursement.

The Decision

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith determined that the comments by Lord Justice Coulson in Cham’ were strictly obiter, with the case determining the position in relation to Counsel fees for advice, and not fees of translators and interpreters. Therefore, the decision was not binding upon him.

He went on to determine that “by CPR 1.2(b), the Court “must” seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it interprets any rule. The first issue, therefore, is one of principal………it seems to me to be clear beyond argument to the contrary that an interpreter is essential if a person or witness who does not speak adequate English is to participate fully in proceedings or give their best evidence.”

LJ Stuart Smith went on to confirm that despite arguments on behalf of the paying party to the contrary, the fees of translators were not encompassed within Table 6B of CPR 45, which contains the specific provisions for recoverable Solicitor’s fees for cases under Section IIIA, and that “the fact that the provision of independent interpreting services will not be provided by a party’s solicitors or counsel as part of the provision of their legal services provides strong support for the submission that they must be recovered”.

The need for advice in cases involving minors or protected parties was distinguished from the need for an interpreter, on the basis that cases involving minors can still proceed to a settlement without the advice, and can still be endorsed by the individuals when they reach the age of majority, whereas  “interpretation of sub-paragraph (h) that precluded the recovery of reasonably incurred interpreter’s fees in a case such as the present would not be in accordance with the overriding objective because it would tend to hinder access to justice by preventing a vulnerable party or witness from participating fully in proceedings and giving their best evidence.”

Commentary

Whilst this ruling is one which will no longer be relevant to cases with a date of incident on or after 1 October 2023, and the new CPR 45.59 expressly permitting recovery of these fees, it will no doubt be most welcomed by litigators dealing with the runoff of cases still captured by the current regime.

It will also be interesting to see if the strong views on access to justice lead to a review of the recovery of translator fees in cases which proceed under the various Pre-Action Protocols, and in which these types of disbursements are currently not recoverable. No variations to this approach are encompassed within the new rules either.

Disbursement disputes on new fixed costs regime is one of the topics which will be discussed at our seminar on 6 September. The seminar will focus key issues in relation to the new rules, including practical guidance on the new banding and allocation rules. Click here for more information and to register to attend.

For further information on this decision, please contact Daniel Murray, who is an Associate in Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Department and can be contacted at daniel.murray@clarionsolicitors.com. 

10 Years of Cost Budgeting: Where we started, and where are we going?

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

This month sees 10 years since the introduction of costs budgeting, which means we have experienced a decade of improved transparency on costs through the litigation journey.

Since the implementation of the Jackson Reforms there have been several case law developments and changes to the Civil Procedure Rules which in turn have shaped the overall effectiveness of costs management.

In the latest Clarion costs podcast, Anna Lockyer and Daniel Murray reflect on these changes, consider the impact these have had on engagement with the budgeting process and discuss the likely future of costs management as the outcome of the Civil Justice Council consultation on costs budgeting is awaited. You can listen to this discussion below.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at  civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Preparing for Fixed Costs reforms: Part 2

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

In the second part of Clarion’s mini-series aimed at helping litigators prepare for the upcoming fixed costs reforms, we look at some interesting developments since the first part of the mini-series was published in November 2022.

Delay to the implementation of the extension to fixed costs

The biggest development is the announcement by the Ministry of Justice  that the implementation of the new fixed costs regime has been delayed by 6 months until October 2023.

Lord Bellamy announced on 18 November 2022 at the Civil Justice Council’s National Forum on Improving Access to Justice: “Extending FRCs requires an extremely complex set of reforms…”

“I know it hasn’t been an easy task. I know that these reforms have particular implications for housing cases, and I am grateful for the constructive input of housing providers which we continue to consider. 

“Progress has been made, and we hope the rules will be approved in the near future. But we’re also very conscious of how important it is to get this right.  

“That’s why I can today confirm that we’re giving these reforms a little more time… and will implement the extension of FRCs in October 2023, rather than next April as originally planned. We think this will give the sector more time to adjust to the new regime.”

It had previously been announced by Lord Justice Birss (Chairman of the CPRC)  that it was the intention of the committee to have a draft copy of the rules out to the profession  before they were approved. However, difficulties were identified in the minutes of the  committee’s October meeting regarding the drafting of the new rules, which indicated that it was not going to be possible to have the rules drawn in time.

The minutes from the December 2022 CPRC meeting, indicate that there is still an intention to provide the rules to the legal profession in draft form prior to their approval and it may well be the case that there is a copy for us to comment on in the next instalment. 

Further delays to the implementation of fixed costs in housing disrepair cases

Housing disrepair cases were set to become a new area of law covered by the extension. The MOJ announced earlier this month that the implementation of fixed costs in these cases will be subject to a further two-year delay, in addition to the October 2023 extension referenced above.

Resultantly, the earliest these reforms will be in place is October 2025, which takes us beyond the timeline for the next general election and brings into doubt whether the next government  will still have an appetite  to implement the proposals. 

Whilst this is good news for tenants and their Solicitors, the news will ultimately come as a blow to landlords faced with claims in which the legal costs often far exceed the costs of repairs.

Recovery of agency fees under the fixed costs regime

An interesting decision at County Court Level from District Judge Phillips, a Regional Costs Judge, was released in January 2023, which in our opinion has ramifications not only for the current fixed costs regime , but also the extended regime which will come into effect in October 2023. We are grateful to John Meehan of Kenworthy’s chambers for sharing a copy of the judgment with us.

District Judge Phillips, sitting in the County Court at Cardiff, confirmed in Wilkinson-Mulvaney -v- UK Insurance Ltd (19th January 2023), that, as things stand, agency fees are recoverable.

The case arose from a claim for personal injury in a low value RTA. At the costs hearing on 5 January 2023, the Judge dealt with several issues but the key issue in dispute was whether or not medical agency fees  were recoverable in addition to expert fees and any fees incurred obtaining medical records pursuant to CPR 45.19.

The Claimant’s Solicitors had obtained expert evidence via a medical agency and the invoices produced in support did not include a breakdown of the agency fees which were incurred in procuring that evidence. The Defendant argued that the agency fees were not recoverable, and it was only the expert’s fee itself that was recoverable. The Defendants argued that any medical agency cost were subsumed within the fixed costs that were recoverable by the Solicitors.

The Judge distinguished this case from the decision in Aldred v Cham (2019) EWCA Civ 1780, where it was held that Counsel’s advice fees in portal fixed costs cases were subsumed within Solicitor’s fixed costs awards.

The Judge held that the cost of obtaining a medical report, did include the fees of the agency. At paragraph 56 the judge stated: “had the drafters of the Rule and the Rule Committee wanted to limit the fees recoverable to those only paid to the doctor, they could have quite easily made this clear in the Rule, they chose not to do so.”

The Judge also went on to confirm that if he was wrong in determining that the fees were recoverable as a disbursement, then the Court was still able to allow a reasonable sum for medical report fees, taking into account the guidance in CPR 44.3 and CPR 44.4.

Further important comments were made by District Judge Phillips, who indicated that it would be helpful if breakdowns were provided on invoices of the time spent by experts in preparing reports, as well as a breakdown of agency fees.

This latter guidance, in our opinion, could be significant ahead of the extension of the fixed costs regime. As the regime expands to cover cases of greater value, the level of expert fees sought under the fixed costs regime will increase, as will  the number of fixed costs disbursement disputes. This is on the basis that a lot of the cases which will be captured by the regime currently fall under the provisional assessment procedure, in which disbursement disputes are common.

Assuming that no provisions are made within the new rules which preclude the recovery of agency fees, ahead of the extension it is advisable to engage in discussions with agencies to establish whether invoices can be produced which provide a clear breakdown of agency and expert fees, to assist the Court with disputes.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Preparing for Fixed Costs Reforms: Part 1

Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

With the wide-ranging extension of the fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime just 5 months away, Clarion are launching a new mini blog series to ensure the spotlight very much remains on the new regime and firms are fully prepared for its planned implementation on April 2023.

This miniseries aims to give its readers a key tip, or takeaway each month to assist firms with their ongoing preparations for the significant changes which are coming.

Familiarise yourself fully with the rules prior to implementation

The new rules are currently still being drafted, with the final draft set for a final review and determination at the next Civil Procedure Rule Committee in December. It is our understanding that the rules committee intention is to publish the agreed rule changes in good time, but as things stand there is no clear indication when that will be.

Our key tip in this month’s blog may seem like an obvious one, but the importance of familiarising yourself with the new rules cannot be overstated.

However, there is already substantial information available to firms on the coming changes, via the initial report prepared by Lord Justice Jackson in 2017, the consultation paper on the proposals, and the government’s response. Further key information can also be derived from minutes of the CPRC meetings.

The rule changes will impact not only CPR 45, but there will also be significant changes to CPR 26, and 28 as a result of proposed changes to the pre-action protocols, and smaller amendments to other rules. It has been indicated in the minutes of the rules committee’s July meeting, that with regards to rule drafting “pragmatism should take precedence over consistency of drafting, such that they will do the best they can, but that it may not amount to full consistency”. A complete redraft of the current part 45 had been considered and previously rejected. We can therefore assume that despite the best efforts of the rule drafters, there are likely to be areas which require additional scrutiny.

The minutes of the rules committee’s October meeting offer some further key information which firms effected by the coming rules changes should be aware of. These are namely:

  • The government has now made a u-turn on their decision not to implement an extra track as part of the fixed costs extension. It is now indicated that there will now be an ‘intermediate’ track to deal with cases valued between £25,000- £100,000. It was observed that this is a very significant change for the CPR. Previously, there were plans to extend the fast track and treat these cases as ‘intermediate cases’.
  • Civil Judges will determine which District Judges can hear cases on the new ‘intermediate’ track. It was identified that this may have wider consequences and draw HMCTS court staff into decisions about case banding. This is set to be reviewed further and certainly warrants further observation
  • There are concerns within the committee regarding banding and the fact that it will be a difficult exercise in light of the plans that no further guidance will be given in the rules. It was acknowledged that there will be need to specific guidance for cases in which non-monetary relief is sought.
  • The exclusion from fixed costs of actions against the police, will not extend to cover ordinary negligence claims, such as a claim arising out of a road traffic accident involving a police vehicle.
  • Inflation remains a key consideration for settling the FRC values, and there is a desire for a mechanism in which inflation adjustments could be built into the rules and applied automatically; possibly via a self-calculating spreadsheet/prescribed form.
  • QOCS is likely to be extended, and a claimant’s entitlement to costs is also be considered part of the overall fund against which set-off could be applied. A further extension is also likely so that a defendant can enforce a deemed order for costs (especially following acceptance of a part 36 offer) without the permission of the court.
  • Increased costs incurred as a result of vulnerable parties will be recoverable on the standard basis, but this will be subject to parties achieving a figure on assessment which is 20% above the fixed costs which would otherwise be recoverable. There are no plans to amend the arrangements for disbursements for vulnerability in FRC cases. This is an important practical point and means that subject to any variations of this point once rules come into effect, unless a party achieves the 20% increase on fixed costs at an assessment, they may be unable to recover any fees for Counsel advising on settlement in cases of protected parties, or recover translators fees. This is pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Aldred v Master Tyreese Sulay Alieu Cham [2019] EWCA Civ 1780.

Daniel Murray is an Associate Costs Lawyer in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com