Tag: Clarion Costs Team

What role does the hourly rate play in the budget?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

This continues to spark debate. The rules states that the hourly rate cannot be set (CPR 3 PD 3E, para 7.10), but further explain that the constituent elements of the budget should be considered when assessing the amount to approved (CPR 3 PD 3E, para 7.3). So, with the hourly rate falling under the umbrella of a ‘constituent element’ the hourly rate can be taken into account, but importantly, not fixed. There will usually be a number of factors that contribute to a reduction of the budget and on occasions the level of the hourly rate may be one of those contributing factors.

Parties are often working blind in respect of the logic that the case management Judge applied. If the court did take the hourly rate into account when reducing the amount of estimated costs sought, and no evidence exists to support the Judge’s thought process, what happens when the costs are finally assessed?

At the moment there is conflicting case law in this regard.

In RNB v London Borough of Newham [2017] EWHC B15 (Costs) Deputy Master Campbell said “If (as it is the case) the hourly rate is a mandatory component in Precedent H which is not and cannot be subjected to the rigours of detailed assessment at the CCMC, it makes no sense if it is automatically left untouched when the rates for the incurred work are scrutinised at the ‘conventional’ assessment.”

“Such an approach would offend against the guidance given in Harrison at paragraph 44. Indeed, as [counsel for the defendant] points out, it is only on that occasion that a paying party has an opportunity to challenge the rate.”

This was therefore a “good reason” to depart from the costs allowed in the claimant’s last approved budget.”

However in  Nash v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B4 (Costs) –  Master Nagalingam found that “a reduction in hourly rates of the incurred costs is not a good reason to depart from the budget in respect of the budgeted (future) costs”.

And finally, in Jallow v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B7 (Costs) Master Rowley found “that there is no good reason to depart from the budget by virtue of the reduction to the hourly rates in this case”.

How can the legal profession employ the rules as currently drafted? Is it possible to gain clarity and a clearer view of the blind logic/working approach adopted by the Judges? If, during the course of the CMC, the Judge does comment on the hourly rate, ask him/her to record a note on the case management order that the hourly rate was considered when approving the budget and that it played a role in the reduction to the rates.

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

Proportionality – a flurry of cases

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

Proportionality is a hot topic in the legal costs world at the moment and in the last 4 months there has been a flurry of cases from the Senior Courts Costs Office and the High Court. The cases are as follows:

Marcura & DA-Desk FZ-LLC -v- Nisomar Ventures Limited & Claus Hyldager.

Various Claimants -v- MGN Ltd [2018]

Arjomandkhah -v- Nasrouallahi [2018]

Powell & others -v- The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2018]

The outcomes in each of these cases are of course case specific. Every case is different, and therefore in practice, this is what makes the application of the new test of proportionality difficult to predict.

It is now fundamentally important for all litigators and costs lawyers to have a sound knowledge of CPR 44.3 (5):

Costs incurred are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to –

(a) the sums in issue in the proceedings;

(b) the value of any non-monetary relief in issue in the proceedings;

(c) the complexity of the litigation;

(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party; and

(e) any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance.

Lawyers should be able to link case facts/details to the above factors and articulate those facts to a Judge at a CCMC, summary assessment or to a Costs Judge on detailed assessment (or provisional assessment).

A really important point is that value shouldn’t be given superior status, as shown in the cases of Various Claimants -v- MGN Ltd [2018] and Marcura & DA-Desk FZ-LLC -v- Nisomar Ventures Limited & Claus Hyldager (costs can be higher than damages). However, in practice, Judge’s are often tactically led by Defendants to place a greater weight on value. It is therefore important for Claimants to be alive to this and ensure the Judge gives equal consideration to each factor in CPR 44.5 (3) and to encourage the Judge to adopt a ‘holistic’ approach (May & May -v- Wavell Group & Dr Bizzari [2018]) when applying the new test of proportionality.

The ’May’ case is the only case to date to give some real judicial guidance in relation to the test and how it should be applied. The decision in that case was appealed, but last week permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal. Many legal experts expected the ‘May’ Appeal to provide the Court of Appeal with the chance to issue some clarity and guidance on the test – they will now have to wait a bit longer.

The area of proportionality is starting to develop and we will see many more decisions in 2018, with some appearing harsh and some lenient. The application of the test involves a large degree of judicial discretion and therefore practitioners should not expect a great deal of consistency. If certainty is what practitioners want then fixed costs is the remedy, which is of course not an attractive alternative!

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

 

When a CFA describes the claim rather than the work it covers

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

The recent Court of Appeal decision of Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1376 reinforced the importance of a clearly drafted funding document.

The case involved a prisoner at HMP Birmingham who pursued a claim for failure to diagnose testicular cancer between August 2010 and January 2011. The prison was operated by the Ministry of Justice, and health care services were provided by Birmingham Community NHS Trust, and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust.

The Claimant initially instructed Ross Aldridge Solicitors, who had difficulty in identifying the correct Defendant, and in March 2012 the Claimant transferred instructions to New Law Solicitors. They, too, encountered uncertainty when trying to identify the correct negligent Defendant.

The Claimant entered into a CFA with New Law Solicitors on 16 January 2013, which stated that the agreement covered “All work conducted on your behalf following your instructions provided on [sic] regarding your claim against Home Office for damages for personal injury suffered in 2010.”

On 04 October 2013, after proceedings were issued but yet to be served, Birmingham Community NHS Trust admitted responsibility for the Claimant’s treatment, and on 20 March 2014 damages were agreed in the sum of £10,000 plus costs.

A detailed assessment of costs commenced, and the Defendant challenged the enforceability of the CFA on the basis that it was limited to a claim against the Home Office/Ministry of Justice only. DJ Phillips, regional costs judge for Walker, found on 27 April 2015 that the CFA excluded a claim against the Defendant and therefore costs were not recoverable under the agreement as the Claimant had no contractual liability to pay his Solicitor for the work done in suing the Defendant.

The Claimant applied for permission to appeal, which was initially dismissed by HHJ Curman QC in a judgment dated 25 September 2015, but was later granted by Brigg LJ by way of order dated 28 July 2017.

On appeal, Patten LJ and Hamblen LJ considered whether the critical wording of the CFA (highlighted in bold above) merely identified the claim to which it related, or whether it limited the scope of the CFA to a claim against the Home Office only. It was necessary to consider the principles established in paragraphs 11-13 of Wood v Capita Insurance Services [2017] UKSC 24 to ascertain whether a textual analysis of the agreement was required or whether greater emphasis should be given to the factual matrix (contextualism).

[A textual analysis is typically used for agreements that have been negotiated and prepared with the assistance of skilled professionals. Alternatively, consideration of a factual matrix can also lead to the correct interpretation of an agreement, particularly if a contract had been made without skilled input].

Hamblen LJ stated that the “insertions made to the CFA demonstrate it as poor quality drafting and little attention to detail. The critical wording consists of only one sentence and yet it contains three manifest mistakes: (i) the omission of the date of the instructions and (ii) the omission of the definite article before “Home Office” and (iii) the description of the claim being against “Home Office”. The Home Office had not been responsible for operating prisons for some years”. The poor drafting led to a greater emphasis being placed on the factual matrix of the agreement rather than a close textual analysis.

Hamblen LJ considered the most natural reading of the critical wording as being a CFA that covered “all work conducted” on the Claimant’s behalf following “instructions provided” in respect of his claim “against Home Office” and he concluded that the wording was descriptive of the instructions received rather than of the work to be done. Further, he suggested that if the CFA had meant to provide only a limited coverage, greater care and precision would have been expected, but that in any event it would have been in neither party’s interest to seek to impose a strict definitional limit on the agreement so early in the claim.

Therefore, taking into account both textualism and contextualism, it was found that the CFA was not limited to a claim against the Home Office/Ministry of Justice only and the Claimants appeal was allowed.

Whilst in this case the judgment goes in favour of the receiving party, it highlights the importance of giving careful consideration to exactly what a retainer provides for, both at the outset and during the life of a claim, to ensure there are no pitfalls on assessment. It is crucial that time is invested into the creation of a retainer at the outset of a matter, and that it is regularly reviewed throughout the life of a case.

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.

INDEMNITY COSTS FOLLOWING DISCONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

CPR 38.3 provides that a Claimant may discontinue a claim by filing and serving a Notice of Discontinuance on the other parties. Under CPR 38.6(1) it states the following:

“Unless the court orders otherwise, a Claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a Defendant against whom the Claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which the Notice of Discontinuance was served…”.

Under CPR 44.9(1), such an order is a deemed order for costs and the basis of assessment is the standard basis.

The case of Two Right Feet Limited (in liquidation) -v- National Westminster Bank PLC and others is a case where the Claimant discontinued proceedings against the Defendants and the Defendants made an application for costs to be awarded on the indemnity basis due to the following issues:

  1. failure to engage pre-action;
  2. improper and unjustified allegations;
  3. an exaggerated claim;
  4. a case which was speculative (both in facts and law);
  5. a claim which was brought without proper investigation;
  6. concerns as to the approach to disclosure; and
  7. delayed discontinuance, other delays and more minor points.

Background

On 3 March 2015, the Claimant commenced proceedings against the Defendants.  In the claim form, the Claimant alleged that the Defendants were liable for deceit and conspiracy.  The claim was first notified to the First and Second Defendants on 9 June 2015 and the claim form was served on 3 July 2015. The amounts claimed amounted to £20 million. The claims were strenuously denied by the Defendants.  On 7 October 2016 there was a case management conference where directions were set and the case was transferred into the Mercantile Court.  Disclosure followed in January 2017, but on 22 February 2017 the Claimant discontinued its claim. 

Indemnity Basis Costs Order

The Judgment provides very useful information for any party considering an application for an indemnity basis costs order as it cites the leading authorities (paragraph 36 is very useful to read in this regard).

The Judge concluded that an order for indemnity costs was appropriate and determined that the way in which the case had been advanced by the Claimant (and conducted) carried the case out of the norm, which is of course an important consideration for any court when deciding whether to award indemnity costs.

The case also highlights the importance of the receiving party (Defendants in this case) making an application. Notice of Discontinuance creates a deemed order for costs on the standard basis. Should a receiving party feel that they are entitled to indemnity basis costs then they should seek agreement with the paying party (Claimant in this case) or make an application to Court. A receiving party should not leave the matter for detailed assessment – the detailed assessment hearing is a forum to determine the quantum of costs, not to determine the basis of assessment.

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

 

Make sure you prepare a Risk Assessment!

Andrew McAulay1 Comment

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) was a piece of legislation which introduced a number of very important changes to civil litigation costs and funding.

One of those changes was the abolition of the recovery of additional liabilities inter partes for retainers created on or after 1 April 2013 (save for some limited exemptions). This meant that additional liabilities were to be paid by clients, and on personal injury matters, it was foreseen (and currently happens in practice) that they would be deducted from the client’s damages. Additional liabilities are therefore now a solicitor/own client expense.

The case of Herbert -v- HH Law Limited is a case that any law firm conducting personal injury litigation (and deducting additional liabilities from clients’ damages) should read. The case relates to an Appeal by the Defendant Solicitors (“HH”) of decisions made by District Judge Bellamy at Sheffield County Court in April and June 2017. The decisions on Appeal were:

  1. The reduction of a success fee from 100% to 15%;
  2. Approval of a cash account in terms which treated the payment of an ATE Insurance Premium as a solicitor’s disbursement; and
  3. Ordering HH to pay the costs of the assessment and refusing to inquire further into HH’s contention that the retainer of the Claimant’s new solicitors (JG Solicitors Limited) was illegal and/or unenforceable.

The appeal was heard on 21 March 2018 before Mr Justice Soole at Sheffield High Court, where he dismissed all 3 grounds.

Key Points

  1. A Risk Assessment should always be prepared in respect of any Conditional Fee Agreement. The LASPO reforms have not resulted in risk assessments no longer being required (a point unsuccessfully argued by HH). A Risk Assessment is a very important document that goes to the heart of the calculation of the success fee. It is a key document for the Court to consider in any solicitor/own client dispute over the level of a success fee charged. It is important that law firms do not take a ‘blanket’ approach to success fees. Law firms should calculate success fees individually on each case, taking into account the specific facts and risks.

    In this case, the success fee was claimed at 100%, but by virtue of the LASPO reforms was subject to a maximum cap of 25% of the total amount of general damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity and damages for past financial loss. The Appeal Judge endorsed the success fee allowed by District Judge Bellamy, which was based on the findings that the facts of the case were straightforward, the nature of the injury was minor soft tissue damage and whiplash, there was no time off work and it was likely that the case would be settled for a modest amount in a short period of time.

    The Appeal Judge stated: 

    “in the circumstances of this particular case, allowing for the fact that the modest disbursements were funded by the solicitors for a fairly short period, the appropriate success fee was 15%……”.

    This case therefore represents a useful guide as to what the success fee should be on straightforward and low value personal injury work.

  2. An ATE insurance premium should be treated as a solicitor’s disbursement and should therefore be included in any final invoice to a client and in any solicitor/own client bill/breakdown of costs.

    In this case, the Defendant did not treat the ATE premium accordingly and therefore failed to properly include it within the final invoice. The result of this was that when District Judge Bellamy considered and approved the cash account, it left a balance of £349.00, which was ordered to be refunded to the Claimant (despite the Defendant actually paying the sum to the insurer!).

The Appeal Judge said the following:

“if the solicitor fails to include the item in the delivered bill of costs, he has to bear the consequence; subject to an application for leave to withdraw the bill and deliver a fresh bill”.

Summary

It is therefore very important for any firms which conduct litigation work under Conditional Fee Agreements (with the support of ATE insurance) to ensure that Risk Assessments are properly prepared for each case and that ATE insurance premiums are included in final invoices to clients.

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

The format of the precedent H budget and precedent R are working well, claims Mr Justice Birss

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

At February’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee meeting Mr Justice Birss reported that “work was ongoing to make certain that the new bill costs, Precedent H and Precedent H Guidance are consistent and accurate and that N260 the summary costs statement follows the same format. The content of Precedent H itself would not be changing. The Chair added that in his experience having settled down, Precedent H and R are working very well“. Therefore no changes are expected to the precedent H budget or the precedent R budget discussion report, the remaining changes relate to the bill of costs and statements of costs.

The wholesale changes to costs that we have encountered over the last 5 years were made as a result of Sir Rupert Jackson’s report whereby he likened the current bill of costs to a “Victorian style account book” making it “relatively easy for a receiving party to disguise or even hide what has gone on”. His purpose was to create transparency and unison with time recording systems and costs related documents, hence the need for the new electronic bill of costs, which is the final piece of Jackson’s jigsaw.

If the legal profession were to embrace time recording as Jackson intended, i.e. recording time in phase, task and activity, then astonishingly some 5 years after the publication of his legendary reforms, Sir Rupert Jackson may achieve his aim. However, Sir Rupert narrowly missed having his vision fully formalised and embedded into the rules during his working lifetime, his retirement has pipped him to the post.  He can now sit back and watch from afar, how his intended co-ordinated approach to costs will work in reality!

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

Evaluating Litigation Risk & Part 36 Offers

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

In the clinical negligence matter between JMX (A child by his Mother and Litigation Friend, FMX) v Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 185 (QB), Mr Justice Foskett found that a Part 36 liability offer of 90% was a genuine offer, which resulted in the Claimant securing the costs benefits listed in CPR 36.17(4).

These benefits included:

1) costs on the indemnity basis following expiry of the offer;

2) interest payable on those costs at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate;

3) the recovery by the Claimant of an additional amount to be determined after the damages have been assessed pursuant to rule 36.17(4)(d).

The matter had been listed for a liability only trial on Monday 31 October 2017. On 06 October 2017, the Claimant had made a Part 36 offer to accept 90% of the damages to be agreed or assessed. The offer expired on Friday 27 October 2017 and was not accepted by the Defendant. The matter proceeded to trial and the Claimant achieved a result more advantageous than the offer.

CPR 36.17(5) provides that “In considering whether it would be unjust to make the orders referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4), the Court must take into account of the circumstances of the case including-

a) the terms of any Part 36 offer;

b) the stage in the proceedings when any Part 36 offer was made, including in particular how long before the trial started the offer was made;

c) the information available to the parties at the time when the Part 36 offer was made;

d) the conduct of the parties with regard to the giving of or refusal to give information for the purposes of enabling the offer to be made or evaluated; and

e) whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings.”

The Defendant had tried to argue that the offer was not realistic and failed to reflect any realistic assessment of the litigation risks. They argued that the Claimant’s Part 36 offer letter did not explain why only a 10% reduction was being offered, which went against the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the case of Huck v Robson [2002] EWCA Civ 398.

This, however, was not accepted by Mr Justice Foskett, who found that “Whilst, of course, it is open to the offeror to explain this kind of thinking in the letter making the offer if it is thought helpful, I do wonder whether in most cases it would assist. I can see the letter prompting a reply (sometimes expressed in language that does not help the settlement process) and it may be thought better simply to leave it to the recipient of the offer to assess the offer as it stands”.

The judgment highlighted the power that Part 36 offers have, and whilst the judge did not criticise the Defendant for failing to accept the offer at the time it was made, he did stress that “Part 36 was drafted in a way that provides an incentive to a defendant to view seriously and, where appropriate, to accept a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The decision not to do so may be perfectly understandable and reasonable even if, in due course, it turns out to have been the wrong one. It is simply a reflection of the litigation risk that each party has to evaluate”.

The judge considered the appropriate interest rate to be awarded (CPR 36.17 (4)(c)), and confirmed that 5% above base rate from 28 October 2017 would do justice.

Whilst a 10% deduction may not, in some cases, amount to much in monetary terms, the judge recognised that in high value serious injury cases worth several million pounds, a 10% reduction would not be an insignificant amount of money, particularly when saved for the public benefit in matters against the NHS.

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.

It’s all in the detail – the costly lesson of getting your retainer wrong: Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

In July 2017, the grounds on which the Appellants brought an appeal were considered in the blog CFAs, Counsel and Rectification – Permission to Appeal granted. This blog focused on the decision of Frade & Ors v Radford & Anor [2017] EQCA Civ 1010.

Fast forward to 07 February 2018, and the Court of Appeal have now considered, and subsequently dismissed, the appeal. Lord Justice McCombe ordered that work done outside the scope of a CFA was not recoverable inter partes, and that retrospective rectification of Counsel’s CFA did not permit costs to be recoverable when they would not have been recoverable save for the rectification.

The Solicitor’s retainers

The Appellants’ argued that a conventional retainer that was entered into before the CFA covered work which was not covered by the CFA. They argued that whilst the CFA superseded the original retainer, there was no basis to conclude that the CFA revoked this retainer. The Appellants relied on the fact that the original retainer letter was sent to their clients at the same time the draft CFA was sent. However, on appeal, the Judge found that there was no co-existing retainer to capture the work which was not covered by the CFA. He concluded on this point that “it only makes sense that the solicitors and clients understood that the CFA superseded the original conventional retainer which had been entered into in circumstances of urgency and before the viability of a CFA could be assessed”, and that “I simply can find no room, on the facts of this case, for the two types of express retainer to have subsisted side by side or for the original retainer to spring back into life, when, contrary to all expectations, the CFA did not cover all the steps taken”.

Therefore, it was a costly lesson to the Appellants that their failure to review the terms of their CFA resulted in work being undertaken that they would not receive payment for.

Counsel’s CFA and retrospective rectification

In terms of the retrospective rectification of Counsel’s CFA, the Appellant’s argued that the rectification of the CFA, which post-dated the order for costs, corrected an error of the omission of two corporate Defendants on the CFA, and that the rectification of the document rendered those Defendants’ liable for Counsel’s fees. And therefore, as a result of such, Counsel’s fees were recoverable on an inter partes basis.

However, the Respondents argued that there was no evidence that the corporate Defendants had ever agreed to retrospectively be responsible for Counsel’s fees, and that it was not open to the Appellants to add to the paying party’s liability for costs after the date the costs order was made. The Respondents relied upon Kellar v Williams [2004].

The Court of Appeal considered the argument and agreed with the original finding of Warby J on this point:

“The underlying rationale is in my judgment that the effect of a costs order is to create a liability to pay, subject to assessment, those costs which a party has paid or is liable to pay at the time the order is made. The liability to pay costs crystallises at that point and, although its quantum will remain to be worked out, that process must be governed by the liabilities of the receiving party as they stand at that time. To allow enforcement of a retrospective agreement which increases those liabilities would be to alter retrospectively the effect of the court’s order.”

The Judge followed the decision in Kellar v Williams [2004] and found that a retrospective rectification of Counsel’s CFA cannot be effective to increase the liability of the paying party after the making of the inter partes costs order.

The decision is therefore an important lesson to litigators. When working under CFAs, it is essential to consider and monitor the retainers to ensure two things; that the work being undertaken is covered by the scope of the retainer, and that for any CFA entered into with Counsel, the parties responsible for Counsel’s fees are documented within the CFA.

 

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.

Sharp v Blank and Ors – What development in litigation is deemed significant enough to warrant a revision to the precedent H costs budget?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

The case of Sharp v Blank and Ors addresses the difficult question – what development in litigation is deemed significant enough to warrant a revision to the precedent H costs budget?

The key points of the claim relate to the approach to be taken when applying to revise a budget and are as follows:

  • Future costs – The court found that the language used in paragraph 7.6 is of critical importance and that it is explicit – the revision is in respect of future costs.
  • Range of reasonable and proportionate costs – The court is only required to set figures that are within a range of reasonable and proportionate costs. A range suggests that the process is designed to produce figures for each budget phase in a way that is not a slave to arithmetical calculation. The court is approving, or the parties are agreeing, figures that are not ‘right’ as such, but rather figures that are within a range of acceptability.
  • Interim applications – The costs of interim applications may fall outside the budget, however the incidental costs are a significant development and a revision to the budget is required for those costs. However, interim applications may also be significant developments in addition to the consequences that flow from an interim application.
  •  Modest increases – A significant development must be understood in light of the claim – its size, complexity and the manner in which the litigation has unfolded – and also from the likely additional costs that have been, or are expected to be, incurred. The amount of the additional expense is not determinative, but it is difficult to conceive that a development leading to modest additional legal expenditure, that is modest in proportion to the amount in the relevant budget phase or phases, is likely to be significant development.
  • A development in litigation may not be immediately obvious – In some cases it may not be immediately obvious that a development in the litigation is significant development; a development which appeared at first sight not to be significant may change character.
  • Mistakes in the preparation of the budget – A mistake in the preparation of a budget, or a failure to appreciate what the litigation actually entailed, will not usually permit a party to claim later there has been a significant development because the word “development” connotes a change to the status quo that has happened since the budget was prepared. If the mistake could have been avoided, or the proper nature of the claim understood at the time the budget was prepared, there has been no change or development in the litigation. By contrast, if the claim develops into more complex and costly litigation than could reasonably have been envisaged, that may well be the result of one or more significant developments.
  • Retrospectivity – Some degree of retrospectivity is inevitable if the costs management regime is to be made to work – parties cannot be expected to down tools until a decision is made regarding the revision, however any request for a revision should be made asap.
  • Claiming additional costs at detailed assessment – If there have been significant developments, the budgets must be revised. A claim for additional costs should not be left until a detailed assessment because the parties need to know what is their exposure to costs and the costs of detailed assessment should be minimised.

Following application of the above the court found as follows:

Extension to the trial timetable – yes, it was found that the court had to ask itself at a relatively high level the essential question, namely is this a significant development. Costs management has to be, at least in part, an impressionistic exercise. It seems to me that is the right approach when considering whether there have been significant developments.

Change in number of documents for disclosure – yes under the circumstances of this case.

Application for permission to rely on additional expert and the incidental costs – yes.

Cs 3rd party disclosure application – no – The application was part of the claimants’ task in preparing the case of a trial and it did not lead to work that can properly be characterised as giving the court jurisdiction to revise the defendants’ budget

Questions to three of the Defendants’ experts – Allowance has to be made for future events and, as they unfold, there will be pluses and minuses; some items are more expensive and some lead to savings. It is not appropriate only to take work which has cost more than was originally anticipated and to say that there has been a significant development. There must be something more than merely a modest increase in the anticipated cost of the work to amount to a significant development.

Response to Mr Ellerton – Mr Ellerton sought to include additional evidence, consequently the Defendant had to produce additional witness evidence and supplemental notes form 2 experts. The court found that this was a development, but that in the context of the claim and the modest additional sums claimed that this was not a significant development.

A significant development will depend on the impact that change has on that case and will be case specific.

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

GET YOUR ORDERS RIGHT!

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

The case of Tibbles v SIG PLC [2012], dealt with issues of allocation and ‘prompt recourse’ which directly affected the Claimant’s costs recovery.

The Court originally allocated the matter to the small claims track, which the Claimant’s solicitor disputed and the matter was successfully reallocated to the fast track.  The Claimant was successful at Trial and was awarded costs ‘on the standard basis to be subject to detailed assessment, if not agreed’.  The Claimant subsequently prepared a bill of costs and commenced detailed assessment proceedings. The Defendant argued that the Claimant was only entitled to small claims track costs whilst the matter was within the remit of the small claims track and entitled to fast track costs post allocation to that track.

Within the detailed assessment proceedings, the Claimant made an application to seek an order under CPR 3.1(7) or CPR 40.12, to vary the order and reallocate the entire matter to the fast track.  The District Judge varied the order accordingly.  The Defendant successfully appealed that decision and the Claimant therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.  In essence, it held that the Claimant should have applied more promptly to vary the order and amending the order would be unfair on the Defendant who had relied on it.

What was interesting in the Judgment was what Rix LJ said at paragraph 48:

“There is nothing in civil procedure about which solicitors can justifiably be expected to know as much, as matters of costs”.

Whilst the above case relates to a procedural issue, it does feed into a topic which we (as a legal costs team at Clarion) regularly encounter difficulties; orders not being prepared properly or failing to include basic, but salient points.

Here are some basic costs related points that litigators should always think about when preparing consent orders, tomlin orders or any costs settlement agreement:

  1. Pursuant to the above case, think about any track issues.  If you do have a case which flips between tracks, then deal with the matter immediately upon reallocation to the higher track. If you fail to do so then maybe not all is lost because you could word the order for costs as follows:
  2. “The Defendant do pay the Claimants costs (based on fast track costs for the entirety of the case) on the standard basis to be subject to detailed assessment, if not agreed”.
  3. Always use the words incidental or occasioned by.  For example, “the Defendant do pay the Claimant’s costs of and incidental to the Claimant’s application for specific disclosure to be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis, if not agreed”.  The words incidental or occasioned by are very powerful and can in most circumstances broaden the remit of the costs agreement.
  4. Think about payments on account.  Most matters are now budgeted and in light of the decision in ‘Harrison’ payments on account should always be sought.  It is much better to receive money sooner, rather than later.
  5. When dealing with the payment of money always make the date for payment clear. Don’t just include a date, include a time i.e. by 4:00 pm on xxxx date.  Also include the words ‘clear funds’.  It is much better to receive money which is cleared and immediately accessible rather than a cheque which can take 3-5 days to clear.
  6. Always ensure that the agreement to pay costs makes clear whether the assessment is on the standard or indemnity basis.  If the order is silent, then standard basis is the default.  You might be entitled to indemnity costs for a specific period, make it clear in the order or agreement.
  7. Always include the words “to be assessed, if not agreed”.  We have ran successful arguments (acting for the paying party) that an order for costs has not provided for an assessment and the Court therefore did not have the power under the order to hear the detailed assessment.
  8. Where the matter is subject to fixed costs, you should quantify the amount and include it in the order. Failure to do this can result in paying parties challenging the amount of fixed costs i.e. premature issue of proceedings or certain disbursements are unreasonable. It would be wise to agree the amount of fixed costs and define it in the settlement agreement to prevent such disputes occurring.
  9. In respect of interlocutory matters, ensure that the order provides for an “immediate” assessment. Failure to do so can create a technical argument that you do not have authority to commence detailed assessment proceedings until the claim has concluded (allowing the paying party to delay payment of the costs). An immediate assessment can create a significant tactical advantage.
  10. Think about counterclaim costs. It may be that the claim and counterclaim are both successful and therefore the case of Medway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd [1929] needs to be considered.  However, it may be that you win your claim and successfully defend the counterclaim.  Make it very clear (in the order for costs) that the Claimant is entitled to both the costs of the claim and the costs of the counterclaim.  Again, lack of clarity could cause confusion and would result in arguments on detailed assessment.
  11. It is also worth making clear the position in relation to interest. The default position is 8% (see Judgments Act 1938).  However, we are increasingly seeing paying parties successfully reduce interest to a much lower rate given that the current Bank of England base rate is 0.5% (please see https://clarionlegalcosts.com/2017/06/20/interest-on-costs/). Therefore, it is advisable for the settlement agreement to state that interest is agreed and notably include a provision that interest is to be calculated at 8% from the date of the order for costs. This provides additional protection, therefore potentially preventing a paying party from attempting to argue a lower rate of interest (and a reduced time period) at a later stage.The inclusion of some of the points highlighted above will create a more robust order for costs and should result in a quicker and more economical compromise with the opponent.   What you do not want to do is work hard on a case, win it and then get bogged down in technical costs issues on detailed assessment which could have easily been avoided by a more clear and well drafted final order/agreement.
  12. The above are just some examples of difficulties that we have seen in the past.  There will probably be many more, and if you have any examples, then please feel free to share them through this blog.

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 07764501252 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com