Tag: #clarion

When High-Value Claims Still Require Budgeting: Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

The Claim

In the case of Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors, approximately 13,000 London black cab drivers issued group proceedings against companies within the Uber group, claiming losses of around £199 million. A further claim, valued at approximately £141 million, was brought by the assignee of two private hire operators, Kabbee and Iride.

Although the total value of the litigation is around £340 million, each driver’s individual claim is relatively modest (circa £15,000), making group litigation a proportionate approach.

The claims arise from allegations that Uber unlawfully obtained a private hire vehicle operator licence by misrepresenting its operating model. It is said that this enabled Uber to compete directly with licensed black cab drivers while undercutting regulated fares, causing substantial financial loss between 2012 and March 2018.

The Preliminary Limitation Issue

Uber denies liability and argues that the claims were issued outside the six-year limitation period.

The Claimants rely on Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, arguing that time did not begin to run until they could reasonably have discovered the relevant facts, which they say occurred in June 2018 following a licensing appeal hearing.

The court has ordered that limitation be determined at a standalone five-day preliminary trial. A representative sample of 20 Claimants (10 chosen by each side) will be used to assess when sufficient knowledge arose. If the Defendants succeed, the litigation may conclude at that stage.

The Costs Budgeting Decision

A significant procedural issue to be determined was whether costs budgeting should apply.

Although claims valued at £10 million or more are ordinarily excluded from the costs management regime, the court retains discretion. The Defendants sought to disapply budgeting, relying on the overall high value of the claim, the existence of litigation funding and ATE insurance, and the alleged additional burden budgeting would impose.

The Claimants argued that, despite the aggregate value, the case is fundamentally a mass claim by individuals of limited means. They required clarity regarding potential adverse costs exposure and future funding requirements.

The Court agreed with the Claimants. While acknowledging that very high-value claims are generally unsuitable for costs management, this case was considered materially different. The modest individual claims and group structure justified greater costs oversight and transparency.

Why This Matters

This decision reinforces that the £10 million threshold is not decisive. Courts will look beyond the headline value of proceedings and consider the nature of the parties and the practical impact of costs exposure.

In large-scale group actions involving individuals with limited financial resources, costs budgeting may be viewed as an important tool to promote fairness, proportionality and effective case management and there are steps you can take ahead of the first CMC if you consider a CMO to be useful in your case.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988 925 or at Katie.Spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

Part 36 consequences following judgment, where judgment is given in a sum other than sterling

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

The Claim

It is not unusual for claims in the Commercial Courts to be denominated in currencies other than sterling. However, that gives rise to challenges where an effective Part 36 offer has been made by a Claimant, as Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules assumes that judgment will be given in sterling. Recent case law has given an indication of how the Court may exercise its discretion whilst respecting the importance and intention behind Part 36 offers.

In the recent case of Sanlam General Insurance Ghana Ltd v Sustainable Growth Fund II SCSP SICAV-SIF [2025] EWHC 559 (Comm) (14 February 2025), a claim was made for $1 million said to be due under a promissory note or corporate counter guarantee governed by English law.

On behalf of the Defendant, Ms Wick acknowledged the debt through a series of letters, either explicitly or implicitly confirming the obligation to repay the claimed sums. Despite repeated promises to pay, the Defendant failed to do so, prompting the Claimant to initiate legal proceedings.

Jurisdiction and Defence

The proceedings were served in Luxembourg in accordance with local law. The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service, indicating an intention to defend the claim and contest jurisdiction. However, no formal application to challenge jurisdiction was made.

Claimant’s Application for Summary Judgment

The claimant sought summary judgment on multiple grounds:

  1. Entry of default judgment against the Defendant,
  2. Striking out the Defendant’s Defence,
  3. Summary judgment on the basis that the Defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

In response, the Defendant submitted another document incorrectly labelled a ‘Defence’ despite having already filed one.

The Defendant raised various points, including an assertion that it was not a legal “person” and therefore could not be sued, and that Ms Wick lacked authority to sign legal documents alone.

The Court considered these arguments but was ultimately satisfied that the Defendant had no real prospect of success.

 Court’s Ruling on Costs and Interest

The Claimant had made a Part 36 offer to settle the claim for $1 million, inclusive of interest, plus costs. The Defendant did not accept the offer, which was subsequently beaten.

Although the Court declined to order that all the Claimant’s costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, it did award the usual Part 36 consequences following judgment, including costs on the indemnity basis following expiry of the offer, enhanced interest on costs and the judgment sum, and an uplift on damages capped at £75,000.

However, the claim was denominated in US dollars and Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules assumes that a judgment will be given in sterling. To quantify interest on the judgment sum, the Court therefore used the US dollar prime rate as the starting point, rather than the Bank of England base rate, and awarded an uplift of 7.5%. In doing so, the Court followed the guidance given in OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2017] 1WLR 3465, where it was recognised that the Court has a discretion as to interest, but it was nevertheless important to incentivise Defendants to engage in reasonable settlement negotiations.

There were fewer difficulties regarding interest on costs, which were denominated in sterling, and a 10% uplift was awarded. However, the uplift on the judgment sum presented the same difficulties as interest on the judgment amount as it was denominated in dollars. The Court rejected a submission that the uplift could not be awarded where the judgment was denominated in a currency other than sterling, as that would defeat the purpose and intention of Part 36; the approach adopted therefore was to notionally convert the judgment sum into sterling at the applicable exchange rate on the date of judgment and to calculate the uplift on those sums.

Costs Assessment for the Summary Judgment Application

Costs were assessed on the indemnity basis following expiry of the Part 36 offer and on the standard basis up to expiry of that offer . The Court therefore had to take both bases of assessment into account in the summary assessment of the Claimant’s costs:

  • Hourly rates: The Claimant claimed £700/hr for a Grade A fee earner, £528/hr for a Grade C fee earner, and £260/hr for a Grade D fee earner. The Grade A hourly rate was assessed at the London 1 rate (£566). The Defendant’s delay and the cross-border aspect involving Luxembourg law supported this rate. Other fee earners were compensated at London 2 rates (£269/hr for a Grade C and £153/hr for a Grade D).
  • Work done on documents: Document preparation costs were reduced by £3,000 to reflect that the Witness Statement and Application Notice were prepared at a time when the assessment should technically have been on the standard, not indemnity, basis. All other document-related costs were allowed as claimed. Additionally, a £7,000 brief fee was found to be reasonable as it included work on documents.
  • Attendance at the hearing: Only the Grade A fee earner’s attendance at the hearing was deemed reasonable. The Grade C fee earner’s attendance time was disallowed as it was unreasonable, even where costs were being assessed on the indemnity basis.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988925 or at katie.spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

Defendant Barred from Arguing Costs – Except Wasted Costs

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

In the recent judicial review case of Ayinde, R (On the Application of) v The London Borough of Haringey, the Defendant was barred from making submissions on general costs after failing to comply with key procedural requirements.

Background

Following the Claimant’s issuance of judicial review proceedings, the Defendant failed to acknowledge service and did not file a statement of facts and grounds of defence. As a result, the Defendant applied for relief from sanctions in an attempt to participate in arguments on costs.

Costs consequences for the Defendant

The Court refused the application, underlining the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules. Consequently, the Defendant was barred from making submissions on general costs.

Wasted Costs

However, the Court did allow the Defendant to make submissions on wasted costs. This exception arose due to the Claimant’s legal representatives citing five fictional legal authorities in their application. In response, the Court issued a wasted costs order, describing the actions as professional misconduct.

Despite being restricted from general cost arguments, the Defendant was still permitted to address the issue of wasted costs—a distinct category aimed at compensating parties for costs incurred due to improper or negligent conduct by legal professionals.

Summary

This ruling serves as a strong reminder that non-compliance with court orders or procedures can lead to severe consequences, including the loss of the right to contest key aspects of a case, particularly on costs.

Practitioners must act promptly and diligently in complying with court directions. Failure to do so risks being excluded from critical elements of litigation, especially those with significant financial impact.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988925 or at katie.spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs IV: Time Recording

Joanne Chase3 Comments

Time spent time recording is time well-spent. Time recording can sometimes seem onerous, particularly when in the midst of tackling some complex and urgent legal problem. However, good time recording supports strong recoveries and avoids client challenges to costs.

This is the fourth blog in a series covering various aspects of solicitor / own client relationships. You can find the other blogs here:-

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs I: Invoicing Clients

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs II: What is an Invoice

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs III: Talking about Money

What is Time Recording?

Time recording and attendance notes are often combined, but they are actually separate. Attendance notes are to keep a record of discussions and reviews of documents for the lawyer to refer to later. For example, recording the client’s instructions in relation to making an offer. The purpose of time recording is to record and justify the time spent.

Why Record Time?

Whenever a solicitor raises an invoice to their client (see Avoiding Challenges to your Costs I: Invoicing Clients) the client has a right to challenge those costs. We will consider the test for challenging costs in more detail in a future blog, but in short it is whether the costs claimed are reasonable. Alternatively, the client may be able to recover their costs from the other side.

In either case, the solicitor’s time may ultimately come under scrutiny. High quality time recording notes protect the solicitor’s time from challenge.

Key Elements of Time Recording

Every firm has different styles and standards of time recording, but it should always contain a few key elements:-

  • Who did it;
  • When it was done;
  • How Long it took;
  • What you did; and
  • Why you did it.

Most time recording will include Who, When, and How Long, but What and Why are often overlooked and sometimes missed out completely. By keeping in mind why you are time recording, you will avoid these mistakes.

How to Time Record

The Who, When and How Long will usually be recorded automatically. The What and Why will usually require the fee earner to write some kind of narrative. A time recording note does not need to be long, and in fact should usually be kept short. For example:-

Call to the client to discuss the opponent’s offer dated 1 June 2021

This note gives plenty of information to explain what was done and why it was necessary. It is clear that it was a telephone call, and that the purpose was to consider an offer.

It is also usually better to refer to individuals by their status in the proceedings rather than by name. For example, “call to Counsel” rather than “call to Steve”. This is because time recording notes are usually for the benefit of someone who was not directly involved in managing the proceedings. Using names can make it hard for a client or judge to follow, particularly when there are a lot of different people such as witnesses, experts, counsel and parties involved.

Summary

Good time recording leads to better recovery and fewer client challenges. Practicing good time recording, and training new staff to time record effectively will pay dividends in recovery rates and avoid challenges.

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

90% Payment on Account where there is a costs budget “Still the Norm”

Bethany CollingsLeave a comment

Earlier this week, following the judgement in Puharic v Silverbond Enterprises Ltd [2021] the High Court confirmed that a 90% payment on account of costs was a reasonable sum for the claimant paying party to have to advance to the successful defendant receiving party. The Claimant had initially offered 50%.

Gavin Mansfield QC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, said: “the Claimant’s proposal fails to have regard to the developing body of law as to the relationship between costs management and detailed assessment“ and went on to comment that at detailed assessment, pursuant to CPR 3.18, the court will not depart from the approved or agreed budget unless there is a good reason to do so per MacInnes v Gross [2017]. In this case it was found that approved budgeted costs should only be reduced by a maximum of 10%.  Thomas Pink Ltd. v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] was also referenced as an example of where 90% of the approved budgeted costs were awarded.

As no submissions were made by the Claimant in the Puharic case to suggest that there would be a good reason to depart from the approved budget, 90% of the approved budgeted costs were ordered to be paid as an interim.

In relation to incurred costs by the time of the CCMC, the Judge asserted that the same point was not applicable as these costs were not subject to the court’s approval. Guidance in accordance with the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] was followed instead. The incurred costs related to the pre-action, issue/statement of case and CCMC phases. The Defendant’s incurred costs of £11,010 for the CCMC phase were recorded in the CMO as “a little high for that phase, but not significantly so” and £10,000 was deemed to be reasonable. There were no issues noted in relation to the pre-action or issue/statements of case phases and so 70% of the incurred costs were deemed a reasonable sum for the purposes of an interim payment.

In relation to the PTR phase, the Defendant sought only 50% of its budgeted costs, because even though work was carried out in this phase, the hearing was vacated.

The Claimant was ordered to make a payment on account of costs in the sum of £187,121.13.