Tag: Clarion Costs Team

How can the precedent H budget assist with any submissions for a split trial?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

The budget can be used in certain instances to assist with the litigation.  A request for a split trial is one of those instances.   The fundamental argument surrounding whether there should be a split trial is predominantly the additional costs associated with this extra trial.

Whether you are requesting the split trial or opposing it, the budget can help.

How can the budget assist with any submissions in support of the application? The budget can demonstrate that the costs remain proportionate and reasonable and those costs are not excessive, despite the additional costs that will be incurred.

How can the budget assist with any submissions in opposition to the application? The budget may be able to highlight that the additional costs will result in the costs being wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.

The budget can be a useful tool for litigators.

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

Fixed Costs and the RTA Protocol

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Recovering the “Fixed Trial Advocacy Fee” for negotiating at the door of Trial

In 2011 in the case of Amin & Hussain –v- Mullings & Royal & Sun Alliance [2011] EWHC 278 (QB) the claim settled during negotiations at the Court door. This resulted in the receiving party being unable to recover a 100% success fee on Solicitor and/or Counsel’s fees despite the fact that the matter proceeded to Court on the day of Trial. The key point is that the matter settled during negotiations at the Court door and did not go before a Judge as a contested hearing.Read More »

Revising your budget – what is a ‘significant development in the litigation’?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Budgets can only be revised if there has been a ‘significant development in the litigation’.  Unfortunately the CPR is devoid of any comment or explanation regarding what a ‘significant development in the litigation’ is.  In the recent case of Churchill -v- Boot (22/04/16) the court determined that the budget could not be revised because no such development had occurred.

The value of the claim had doubled since the original budget had been approved, the trial had been delayed and there had been additional disclosure.  The Judge found that there had not been any significant developments since the date that the previous budget was approved and refused to vary the budget.  The Claimant appealed to the judge who held that:

  • He was not satisfied that there had been significant developments
  • The increased value of the claim did not mean that there would be higher costs. The parties already had permission to call the relevant experts.
  • The additional disclosure was clearly foreseeable when the costs budget was set.
  • An adjournment could potentially be a significant development. However on the facts of this case it was not.
  • The master had exercised his discretion appropriately there were no grounds to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

This demonstrates the need to interpret the case and accurately formulate the case plan prior to preparing the budget.  The judge gave consideration to what the parties should have known when the budget was prepared, rather than simply relying on the assumptions to support the revision of the budget.  Accurate assumptions are essential despite the recent amendment to the rules which encourage condensed assumptions.

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

CFA Squabbles…………

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

The case of Evans -v- Enterprise Group Holdings is an interesting and useful case to read in the context of ‘Bailey’ and costs claimed under a CFA post 1 November 2015.

Be warned it is a long Judgment! The key part to read is paragraph 53 a-f, where it sets out the procedure that should be adopted by Judge’s when faced with retainer validity questions.

If anyone has any recent experiences of the procedure adopted by the Court’s following retainer validity disputes, then please feel free to share them through this blog.

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

 

 

 

Raising the Bar: how guideline hourly rates limit access to justice

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

In a statement dated 17 April 2015, Master of the Rolls the Rt Hon Lord Dyson said that the Guideline Hourly Rates (‘GHRs’) form ‘…an integral part of the process of… summary assessment… a starting reference point in the preparation of detailed assessments… [and] a yardstick for comparison purposes in costs budgeting’, something of a non sequitur following his previous statement that the GHRs are becoming ‘less and less relevant’. Nevertheless the GHRs remain, yet do they undermine the fundamental principles of access to justice?

Read More »

Maximising costs – guidance for Solicitors on maximising hourly rates

Joanne Chase1 Comment

Do you consider your hourly rate when preparing your retainer? Or do you rely on a template document?

It is worth considering at the outset of any claim the potential value of the matter and complexity of the claim in order to set the hourly rate accordingly. Failure to do so could result in you being limited to hourly rates that, on an assessment of costs, could have recovered an enhancement. In light of the indemnity principle, enhancement is not an option if your retainer restricts you to lower rates.

Read More »