The importance of an accurate and correctly certified Bill of Costs…….

The case of Jago v Whitbread Group plc relates to the Defendant’s application for an order pursuant to CPR 44.11(1) & (2), which reads as follows:

“The Court may make an order under this rule where –

  • a party or that party’s legal representative, in connection with a summary or detailed assessment, fails to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order; or
  • it appears to the Court that the conduct of a party or that party’s legal representative, before or during the proceedings or in the assessment proceedings, was unreasonable or improper.”

The Defendant requested that the Court disallow all or part of the Claimant’s entitlement to costs on the grounds of her solicitors improper and/or unreasonable conduct during the detailed assessment proceedings.

The following is a brief summary of the substantive case and detailed assessment proceedings:

  1. The Claimant brought a personal injury claim against the Defendant, which settled for damages of circa £41,000, with costs to be subject to detailed assessment, if not agreed.
  2. The matter settled on 4 March 2015 and on 12 March 2015, the Claimant disclosed an informal statement of costs to the Defendant. The statement of costs was a two page document which totalled £101,677.21. The statement included a success fee of 20%, various disbursements in the total sum of £537.00 and two and half hours for preparing and checking the statement of costs. The statement was signed by a senior solicitor and partner at the Claimant’s firm.
  3. On receipt of the statement of costs, the Defendant’s solicitors responded requesting disclosure of the Claimant’s conditional fee agreement, with the Claimant’s solicitors responding on 18 June 2015, stating that the Claimant “……was not subject to a CFA in regards to this matter”.
  4. The Defendant’s solicitors responded querying why therefore a success fee of 20% had been claimed in the statement of costs when no CFA was in existence.
  5. On 19 November 2015, the Claimant served notice of commencement of detailed assessment, with the bill of costs totalling £91,474.41. This bill of costs was of course over £10,000 less than the sum claimed in the statement of costs. Disbursements had been reduced to £430.00 and profit costs had also been reduced. A success fee of 25% was claimed in the bill of costs, despite the correspondence on 18 June 2015 stating that the matter was not subject to a CFA.
  6. The bill of costs was certified by the supervising solicitor and partner. A claim of three and a half hours was included by a law costs draftsman and one hour by the supervising solicitor to check the bill of costs. The certification confirmed that the bill of costs was valid and accurate (and therefore no breach of the indemnity principle).
  7. In December 2015, the Defendants served points of dispute and shortly thereafter amended points of dispute raising a number of significant queries and challenges to the bill of costs.
  8. On 15 January 2016, the Claimant filed and served a fresh bill of costs. Instead of amending the existing bill of costs, the Claimant’s solicitors effectively started the detailed assessment proceedings again with a redrafted bill of costs. The redrafted bill totalled £56,719.00, which represented a reduction of circa. £35,000.00 from the total sum claimed in the bill of costs served in November 2015.
  9. In respect of the revised bill of costs, the success fee was removed. Disbursements were reduced further to £385.00 and the profit costs sought in the bill were significantly reduced. Again, a claim of three and half hours was included in the bill of costs for a law costs draftsman preparing the same, together with an hour for the supervising solicitor/partner checking and certifying the bill of costs.
  10. On receipt of the redrafted bill of costs, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors highlighting the procedural error in that they should have simply amended the existing bill of costs rather than creating a new bill of costs.
  11. In response to that correspondence, on 8 April 2016 the Claimant’s solicitors filed and served a further bill, this time an amended bill of costs. The total sum claimed in the bill was £55,393.19. Profit costs were reduced again together with a further reduction to disbursements. Again, the bill was signed and certified by the supervising solicitor and partner.


    Outcome

    Master Whalan found the Claimant’s solicitors’ actions to be “improper” and “unreasonable” and imposed the following penalty for the “improper” and “unreasonable” behaviour:

  • The Claimant’s entitlement to costs be disallowed to the extent of 50% of the assessed costs allowed on detailed assessment.
  • Specific deductions to the bill of costs (see paragraph 41 of the Judgment). These reductions included time in relation to other work done i.e. preparing, checking and certifying the bill of costs.

    In reaching his decision, Master Whalan stated that the breaches in the case were significant, repeated and either unexplained or unjustified (paragraph 40 of the Judgment).

    This is an excellent case which demonstrates the importance of preparing an accurate bill of costs and ensuring that a bill of costs does not breach the indemnity principle before certifying the same. What is clear from the Judgment is that Master Whalan would probably have been forgiving for the errors made in the first instance, but the failings the second time round and further failings thereafter were not capable of forgiveness and resulted in the severe penalty reduction of only 50% of assessed costs for the Claimant’s solicitors. So ensure statements of costs and bills of costs are prepared and checked properly!

    This blog was prepared by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding Team. Andrew can be contacted on 0113 336 3334 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com

Indemnity Basis Costs Awards

The case of MacInnes v Hans Thomas Gross [2017] contains some very useful information for any law firm or litigant considering the issue of indemnity basis costs awards. Pages 2 and 3 are the relevant pages to consider in the judgment.

In the case, the First Defendant applied for an indemnity basis costs award against the Claimant, but this was rejected by The Honourable Mr Justice Coulson, and in doing so he considered a number of authorities in relation to such awards. Those very useful authorities are at paragraph 3 of the judgment and are as follows:

  1. Indemnity costs are appropriate only when the conduct of the paying party is unreasonable “to a high degree. ‘Unreasonable’ in this context does not mean merely wrong or misguided in hindsight” see Kiam v MGN Limited [2002].
  2. The court must therefore decide whether there is something in the conduct of the action, or the circumstances of the case in general, which takes it “out of the norm” in a way which justifies an order for indemnity for costs, see Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Limited v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson [2002].
  3. The pursuit of a weak claim will not usually, on its own, justify an order for indemnity costs, provided the claim was at least arguable. The pursuit of a hopeless claim (or a claim which a party pursuing it should have realised was hopeless) may well lead to such an order, see Wates Construction Limited v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Limited [2006].

The review of key authorities in the judgment is very useful and provides an excellent starting point for anyone tasked with considering whether to apply for an indemnity basis costs award.

Do remember that an indemnity basis costs award should always be sought in the appropriate cases, due to the fact that proportionality is not a consideration/factor when costs are assessed on the indemnity basis. There is also case law that supports the position that a receiving party is not restricted/held to its costs budget where costs are assessed on the indemnity basis (Slick Seating Systems [2013] and Kellie v Wheatley [2014]). CPR 3.18 also supports this.

The new test of proportionality has had a real impact (negatively for receiving parties) on some reported cases (see, for example, The new test of proportionality – 66% reduction) and therefore an indemnity basis award would provide protection for a receiving party from the new test of proportionality. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that an indemnity basis costs award escapes fixed costs (Broadhurst v Tan [2016]) and therefore applications for indemnity basis costs awards may well be on the increase given the likely extension of fixed costs for civil and commercial litigation in the not too distant future.

This blog was prepared by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and the Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding Team. Andrew can be contacted on 0113 336 3334 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com.

 

The importance of the precedent H Costs Budget! Harrison on appeal – no second bite of the cherry.

Jacqueline Dawn Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] WECA Civ 792 – the Court of Appeal has found that the budgeted costs will not be departed from in the absence of a “good reason”. Davis LJ further found that incurred costs do not form part of the budgeted costs and the good reason test does not apply to those incurred costs. Davis LJ confirmed that the proportionality test can be applied to the final claim for costs. This is despite the proportionality test having been applied when the costs budget was approved, this may result in claims for costs being subject to detailed assessment on the issue of proportionality alone.

Davis LJ summarised the Applicant’s submissions regarding what reliance should be placed on the budget at detailed assessment, as follows:

“The premise underpinning Mr Hutton’s argument thus was that CMOs in effect are but summary orders which at best give no more than a snapshot of the estimated range of reasonable and proportionate costs: often reached, as Mr Hutton would have it, on a broad brush or rough and ready judicial approach after a hearing which would have been limited in time, rushed in argument and incomplete in the information advanced”.

Davis LJ considered this to be a sceptical appraisal, commenting:

“that to sanction, at detailed assessment, a departure from the budget in the absence of good reason would overlook (among other things) that budgeted costs are already required to have regard both to reasonableness and to proportionality; that the aims of costs budgeting include a reduction in detailed assessments and of issues raised in points of dispute; and that the element of certainty to clients (in the form of knowing what costs they are likely to face, in terms of payment or recovery) would be removed.

Moreover, if approval of a costs budget by a CMO has the more limited status which the appellant would ascribe to it then that would have a potentially adverse impact on parties thereafter attempting to agree matters without requiring a detailed assessment.  Although Mr Hutton queried if that was one of the perceived prospective benefits of the costs budgeting scheme, it seems to me – as it did to the editors of Cook on Costs – wholly obvious that it was indeed designed to be one of the prospective benefits of cost budgeting that the need for, and scope of, detailed assessments would potentially be reduced.”

The court’s attention was then drawn to incurred costs. The respondent presented what was described by Davis LJ as an ingenious argument to the court regarding incurred costs being potentially, in essence, approved ‘through the back door’. The respondent submitted that:

the incurred costs will have acquired a special status: in that, while not “approved” as such, they will have been taken into account by the court at the costs management hearing in managing the future estimated costs.”

Davis LJ disagreed and found that:

With respect, this will not do.  Either incurred costs are within the ambit of CPR 3.18 (b) or they are not.  Since they are not approved budgeted costs, by the terms of paragraph 7.4 of PD 3E and of the Rules, they are not within that sub-rule.”

Davis LJ recognised that practical problems remained surrounding incurred costs and advised that the CPR committee’s intention was to amend the rules to decouple incurred costs from budgeted costs.

In summary, a good reason is required to depart from the budget, the proportionality test can be applied to budgeted costs, thus a reason to escape the restrictions of the budget; incurred costs should be considered in isolation to the budgeted costs and the rules still require amendments regarding incurred costs to ensure that costs management works.

It is therefore essential that an accurate budget is presented to the court, this Court of Appeal decision has ruled that a budget cannot be departed from unless there is a good reason to do so, this is a difficult test to overcome. There is no second bite of the cherry.

Sue Fox is a Senior Associate and the Head of Costs Budgeting in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact her at sue.fox@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 336 3389, or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 246 0622.

 

Fixed Recoverable Costs – the pilot scheme

News story imageFollowing on from my newsletter below, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting notes have been published today. Last month I explained how Jackson LJ had suggested how ‘capped fixed costs’ would work. The meeting notes have now confirmed how the pilot scheme will work, explaining that costs for preaction would be capped at £10,000, for particulars of claim at £7,000 and for defence and counterclaims at £7,000.

Many thanks to John Hyde of the Law Society Gazette who has reported that “Parties can claim up to £6,000 for a reply and defence to the counterclaims, £6,000 for the case management conference, £6,000 for disclosure and £8,000 for witness statements. Expert reports are capped at £10,000, with the trial and judgment costs limited to £20,000.

The working group dedicated to the pilot scheme proposes an overall cap of £80,000 rather than setting an actual fixed amount at this stage.

The proposal, backed in principle by the committee, is to run the pilot in certain specialist civil courts: the London Mercantile Court and three courts in each of the Manchester District Registry and Leeds District Registry. Any cases where the trial will go beyond two days, or where the value is more than £250,000, are excluded“.

Clarion May 2017 Newsletter: Fixed Recoverable Costs. A taster of how the pilot scheme may work.

The judiciary have released an outline regarding how the fixed recoverable costs regime may work. Jackson LJ attended a costs seminar in Birmingham back in March 2017, which focused on mercantile and business litigation. At that seminar both Jackson LJ and HHJ Waksman outlined their proposals for the fixed costs pilot scheme, those proposals being subject to the approval of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The details of their proposals were as follows:

The pilot scheme will run in the London Mercantile court, and Manchester and Leeds specialist courts.

  • It is likely that the pilot will commence in October 2017 and will last for two years.
  • The pilot scheme is optional.
  • There will be a separate fixed costs list.
  • The pilot can be joined at certain stages:
    • The pre-action stage
    • No later than 14 days after service of the defence
    • At the case management conference (CMC)
    • Claimants can commence proceedings in the fixed costs list.

The Defendant has an absolute right to object to this, and if so then the proceedings would be removed from the fixed cost list.

  • The CMC will be the last opportunity to join the pilot.
  • Parties will not be able to withdraw from the pilot, apart from the Defendant if the Claimant issues in the pilot scheme (see above).
  • There will be a shortened process with strict case management .

The pilot is currently a ‘work in progress’, however it is envisaged that these proposals will be making their way to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee in June 2017, so these could be public by July 2017. It is currently predicted that:

  • Parties will be required to file their “core documents” (the documents that are relevant to the issues in the claim) with their statements of case, i.e. the particulars of claim, defence, reply and defence to counterclaim.
  • There will be no need for further disclosure, unless parties can justify this at the CMC.
  • If further disclosure is required, parties will need to apply for the same before the CMC. If the parties cannot agree, an order will be made.
  • At the CMC, the judge will suggest Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE).
  • The CMC will be the only interim hearing, this will include setting the trial timetable.
  • Consideration is being given to limiting the number of witnesses, the thoughts are that there will be one factual witness on each side.
  • Costs budgeting will not be required and there will be no pre-trial review.
  • The trial length will be up to two days (excluding judicial reading).
  •  Cross-examination will be “very strictly controlled”.
  • An early hearing date will be guaranteed.
  • Judgments will be produced within a short period of time.
  • Pilot participants can expect “active and proactive” case management.
  • Costs will be summarily assessed at the end of trial.

The above proposals were made in March 2017, however since then there have been further proposals, as follows:

  • The pilot will only relate to claims that are less than £250,000.
  • The pilot will only relate to claims where the trial is no more than 2 days.
  • The pilot will only relate to non-complex matters.
  • The maximum costs that will be allowed will be £80,000. The pilot scheme will be similar to the IPEC costs regime. There will be caps for phases of litigation and those phases will be the same as the phases used in costs budgets.
  • Parties can only leave the scheme under exceptional circumstances, examples of those circumstances are; allegations of fraud, if the matter subsequently is listed for a 3 day trial.
  • Judgment will be handed down within 6 weeks.
  • The proposed ‘grid’ is not yet available and it is likely that this will not be available until the practice directions are published, so it may make its way into any July update to the rules. The main benefits of the pilot scheme are that claims will be resolved speedily and parties will be more aware of their potential costs exposure.
  • We will continue to provide updates regarding fixed costs, as well as all costs related law.

 

Sue Fox who is a Senior Associate and Head of Costs Budgeting at Clarion, can be contacted on 0113 336 3389 or on sue.fox@clarionsolicitors.com

 

 

 

 

Interest on Costs

The case of MacInnes v Hans Thomas Gross [2017] is a very useful case to read as it covers a number of topics including indemnity basis costs awards, interest, proportionality, costs budgeting and payments on account. The focus of this article is the useful contents from the Judgment in relation to interest on legal costs. Pages 3, 4 and 5 are the relevant aspects of the Judgment to consider in this regard and I set out below the key points:

  • The court awarded pre-judgment interest at a rate of 4% above base rate and relied heavily on the Judgments in McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited [2002] and KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 383 when making its decision.
  • In relation to post-judgment interest the court ruled that it should not start to accrue until 27 April 2017 (which was 3 months after the date of the Judgment). The reason for this was because the court awarded a very substantial payment on account and followed the logic of Leggatt J in the case of Involnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Limited and Others [2015] which provided some very useful guidance in relation to post-judgement interest. The logic behind the deferral of 3 months was the fact that by that time Detailed Assessment Proceedings should have been commenced, and therefore the paying party would have had sight of the bill and could start to make a realistic assessment of the amount of their liability. Without sight of the Bill of Costs, it could not do that.
  • It is important to note that in relation to the post-judgement interest point, the deferral of interest for 3 months was primarily due to the fact that a Costs Management Order was in place and the court made an order for a substantial payment on account. If a Costs Management Order was in place, but a substantial payment on account was not made then one would expect the court not to make such an Order in relation to post-judgment interest i.e. interest would run in the traditional way (8% from the date of Judgment).
  • The position in relation to pre-judgment interest should be considered by any law firm acting for a client on a private fee paying retainer. When it comes to the issue of interest on costs, the court has a wide discretion as to when interest starts to run under CPR 44.2 (6) (g).

Therefore, where appropriate, law firms should be seeking interest from before the date of Judgment as it will be beneficial to the client given that the rate is likely to be 4% above base rate from when the law firm’s invoices were paid (invoices could date back a number of years).

This blog was prepared by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and the Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding team. Andrew can be contacted on 0113 336 3334 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com.

Clearing the Special Circumstances Hurdle; Section 70 (3)(c) of the Solicitors Act

The case of Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP [2017] EWHC B4 (Costs) addressed what is a special circumstance for the purpose of securing an application for the assessment of a solicitor’s bill where payment had been made, but 12 months had not yet lapsed.

Section 70 (3)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974 states that, where a paying party wishes to have the costs assessed but has failed to make an application within one month of delivery of their solicitor’s invoice, and where the paying party has either; allowed 12 months to lapse following delivery of the invoice, had judgment against them for recovery of the costs billed, or where they have paid the bill in full but 12 months has yet to lapse post payment, the court will not make an order expect in special circumstances.

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd addresses what those special circumstances could look like. This particular case was subject to private proceedings; however, the Judgment has been made public with a small number of redactions.

The defendant rendered invoices totalling circa. £13.6 million, which were all paid in full. The claimant was unable to seek an assessment of invoices totalling £3.9 million on the basis they had been rendered and paid more than 12 months prior – the Court had no jurisdiction to assess those costs. The parties also agreed that invoices totalling £5.5 million could be assessed on the basis one month had not yet passed. A balance of £4.2 million remained, spread across 15 invoices where the Claimant had to show special circumstances in order to obtain an order for their assessment.

The claimant identified seven different reasons why this was a special circumstance, with Master Rowley accepting six of those seven reasons.

The starting point for the claimant was whether there was a special feature in the case which required an explanation, and whether this meant it was reasonable to proceed to a detailed assessment.

Firstly, Master Rowley accepted that a special circumstance existed in the discrepancy between the estimates provided to the client and the costs actually billed by the solicitor. This provided reason to proceed to a detailed assessment. He continued, however, to also comment on whether further submissions amounted to special circumstances.

Master Rowley found that the size of the bills, whilst not a direct special circumstance, could be a ‘magnifying prism’ to billing irregularities, which was also identified as a low hurdle to demonstrate a special circumstance in this case.

He also found that the relationship between the claimant and his solicitor was very important, as the claimant in this case highly valued their solicitor’s relationship with the Serious Fraud Office. The claimant was aware that a relationship breakdown with their solicitor would not only lose their prized expertise, but may also undermine the Serious Fraud Office’s confidence in the investigation. This point, whilst very case specific, highlights the fragility of some relationships and demonstrates why some claimants may not, despite wanting to, challenge the levels of fees within the one month as required by s.70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

Secondees from Addleshaw Goddard had assisted the claimant’s legal department during the matter and as part of their duties they had queried the defendant’s billing. The claimant submitted that the defendant’s hostile reaction to these modest queries showed how unrealistic it was to expect the claimant to formally challenge the fees during the course of the retainer, to which Master Rowley agreed. This, again, amounted to a special circumstance.

Finally, Mr Rowley also concluded that the parties’ conduct in Solicitors Act proceedings could be relevant. In this case, the defendant’s conduct of these proceedings (in that they sustained attempts to avoid scrutiny of their charges), would amount to a special circumstance in that they called for an explanation.

The one submission that was rejected as a special circumstance was the fact that there was going to be, in any event, a detailed assessment of the invoices totalling £5.5 million. Master Rowley did not accept that the existence of other invoices resulted in a special circumstance.

There is a wealth of information considered within this one judgment, with Master Rowley succinctly summarising what amounts to special circumstances at paragraph 102;

“The only one which does not amount to a special circumstance is the existence of other bills being assessed (factor 3). The peculiarities of the solicitor client relationship here making Solicitors Act applications unrealistic (4) combined with the defendant’s response to any challenges (5) amounts to a special circumstance in my view. So too does the defendant’s approach to these proceedings (7). The billing irregularities (6) would amount to a special circumstance when viewed through the magnifying prism of the size of the bills (2)”.

 

This Judgment helpfully provides guidance on what factors may be deemed a special circumstance when attempting to secure an application for the assessment of a solicitor’s bill where payment has been made, but 12 months has not yet lapsed. It must be remembered that this case is very fact sensitive, but for any paying party finding themselves in a position where they are considering an application for the assessment of a bill paid less than 12 months prior, this case may be exactly what they need.

If you have any questions or queries in relation this blog please contact Joanne Chase (joanne.chase@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 336 3327) or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 2460622.

 

Pre 1.4.13 CFA – Advocacy or Litigation services provided OR not?

The recent case of Choudhury -v- Markerstudy could have serious repercussions for receiving parties in Detailed Assessments.  Here is a brief summary of the case:

  • Rohan Choudhury (a child) suffered an accident on 12 March 2013. Rohan was a minor and was therefore represented by her Mother, Mrs Choudhury.
  • An Infant Approval hearing took place in January 2015, where the Court approved a settlement figure of £1,050.00.
  • The Claimant was represented by Irwin Mitchell solicitors, who at the time of instruction, were acting under a Collective Conditional Fee Agreement (CCFA) with Aviva.
  • Following the accident Aviva wrote to the Claimant, and thereafter, Irwin Mitchell wrote to the Claimant explaining the terms in which they would be retained. Those letters were sent before 1 April 2013, but no other work was carried out.
  • Mrs Choudhury instructed Irwin Mitchell by signing a document on 1 April 2013 and returning it. The document that she signed was the pre 1 April 2013 CCFA.
  • The Defendant argued that the retainer was invalid because it was signed and entered into on 1 April 2013, but was based on a regime which on 1 April 2013, was no longer available to litigants (and therefore invalid).
  • The Claimant stated that this was incorrect because ‘Advocacy or litigation Services were provided to the Claimant under the agreement in connection with that matter before the commencement day’ (Section 44.6, 6b of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – ‘LASPO’).
  • The Court ruled that ‘Advocacy or litigation services’ had not been provided and therefore the retainer was invalid. As a consequence, no costs were payable by the Defendant to the Claimant as there was no indemnity between the Claimant and the Claimants Solicitors.

The District Judge clearly adopted a strict interpretation of LASPO and what amounts to ‘Advocacy and litigation services’. The paying party did not dispute that if litigation services had been provided then the retainer would have been valid.

This Judgment will no doubt cause concern to receiving parties.  Whilst the Judgment is only at County Court level, it will encourage paying parties to raise such arguments. There will still be plenty of cases left in the system where the additional liabilities were entered into very close to 1 April 2013.  In fact, it was widely reported in many legal publications (at the time) that law firms had signed up clients to Conditional Fee Agreements, and in particular ATE insurance, very close to the deadline of 1 April 2013.

Many believe that a black and white approach should be adopted in relation to the inception i.e. if the additional liability was incepted pre 1 April 2013 then it is valid and the associated additional liability recoverable, however, if it is entered into post 1 April 2013 then the additional liability is not recoverable.  The issue over ‘Advocacy or litigation services’ will create some interesting arguments!

In my opinion, what law firms should have done is sent a “holding” Letter of Claim to the Opponent (or likely Opponent) prior to 1 April 2013.  Surely, this would have provided protection from the ‘Advocacy or litigation services’ point?

The key practical point from the Judgment is that the work which was done before 1 April 2013 was effectively ‘client care’ work. In reality, the case will only have an impact on clients who were signed up to CFA’s and/or ATE insurance premiums close to 1 April 2013.  For example, if a client was on a private fee paying retainer from say January 2013, but switched to a CFA retainer in late March 2013, then ‘Advocacy or litigation services’ would have most likely been provided by the time the CFA was entered. This scenario would therefore be safe from the argument.

It is widely reported that fixed costs for all fast track work and low level multi-track work will be introduced in October 2018. Those who draft the rules as to implementation need to do so carefully as otherwise arguments and satellite litigation will take place.

This blog was prepared by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and the Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding. He can be contacted on 0113 336 3334 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com.