Tag: CPR 44

Who can sign a Bill or Statement of Costs?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

A Bill or Statement of Costs must be signed. This requirement is contained at CPR 47 PD 5.21 in the case of a bill, or CPR 44 PD 9.5(3) for a statement. But one question which is often asked is who may sign a bill? The certificates on the precedents refer to a “Partner”, but is a partner in fact required to sign?

CPR 44 PD 1.1 states that“…in respect of any document which is required by Practice Directions 44 to 47 to be signed by a party or that party’s legal representative, the provisions of Practice Direction 22 relating to who may sign apply as if the document in question was a statement of truth. Statements of truth are not required in assessment proceedings unless a rule or Practice Direction so requires or the court so orders.”

Statements of Costs

CPR 22 PD 3.1 states “in a statement of case… the statement of truth must be signed by (1) the party or his litigation friend; or (2) the legal representative of the party…” A legal representative is defined at CPR 2.3 as “(a) a barrister; (b) solicitor; or (c) a solicitor’s employee”.

CPR 44 PD 9.5(3) states that “the statement of costs… must be signed by the party or the party’s legal representative”. This falls within CPR 44 PD 1.1 and CPR 22 PD 3.1 as above, and therefore a statement of costs may be signed by the party’s “legal representative” as defined above. A statement of costs therefore does not need to be signed by a Partner. Indeed, according to the Rules the statement of costs could in theory be a trainee or even a secretary.

Bills of Costs

The position is not so clear for a bill of costs: CPR 47 and the associated practice direction does not contain any rule that the bill of costs must be signed by the party or the party’s legal representative. Rather, CPR 47 PD 5.21 states that the bill must “…contain such of the certificates [annexed to the practice direction] as are appropriate”.

The certificates to be included can be found here and state “all certificates must be signed by the receiving party or by his solicitor”. However, it is not clear that a precedent document can, of itself, impose any obligation on a party as it is supplementary to but does not form a part of the rules.

In Bailey -v- IBC Vehicles [1998] EWCA Civ 566 it was held that “the signature on of the bill… is effectively the certificate by an officer of the Court that the receiving party’s solicitors are not seeking to recover in relation to any item more than they have agreed to charge…”

By analogy, CPR 3.13(5) states that a costs budget must be verified by a statement of truth “signed by a senior legal representative” of the party, and it was held in Americhem Europe Ltd -v- Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 that a legal representative is someone who “is representing in a legal capacity” and that a costs draftsman, who simply prepares the bill, is not. This authority therefore suggests that the individual should be directly engaged in or at least have capacity to carry out a reserved activity (i.e. an activity which is reserved under the Legal Services Act 2007) rather than an activity ancillary to a reserved activity. In other words, the test is whether the individual is entitled to carry out the reserved activity to which the bill related, such as litigation.

Furthermore section 69(2A) of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides that a solicitor’s bill to his client must be signed “by the solicitor or on his behalf by an employee of the solicitor authorised by him to sign”. This raises the question as to whether a bill certificate may be signed by an employee of a solicitor but that the “buck stops” with the solicitor – i.e. any employee may sign but if it is wrong the solicitor is responsible. This was the finding in Gempride -v- Bambrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367 in which the solicitor had signed a bill which was wrong. She subsequently argued that she had relied on the costs draftsman that it was accurate; the Court held that whilst it may have been drafted by others she was ultimately responsible for the content.

In the opinion of the author, a bill of costs does not need to be signed by a partner but must be signed by a solicitor and not a “legal representative”. It is possible that a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (being entitled to carry out reserved activities) might also be entitled to sign.

Summary

There is no requirement that a bill or statement of costs must be signed by a partner. Whilst it is theoretically arguable that any employee of a solicitor may sign a statement or bill of costs (1) the solicitor will ultimately be liable even if the document is signed on their behalf, and (2) it would in almost all cases be needlessly risky to do so as it could give rise to significant argument about whether the document had been properly certified. Therefore in general, bills and statements should be signed by a solicitor.

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

Court holds that an application under CPR 44.11 to reduce a party’s costs on the basis of misconduct is not a vehicle to give paying parties a “second bite of the cherry”

Joanne Chase1 Comment

In Paul Andrews & Anor -v- Retro Computers Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC B2 (Costs), Master Friston held that an application that the receiving party’s costs should be reduced or disallowed under CPR 44.11 on the basis of that party’s conduct was not to be used as a vehicle to contest the order for costs made by the trial judge.

This update is a summary of a complex and lengthy judgment. A full analysis will follow in due course.

CPR 44.11

CPR 44.11 states (so far as relevant) that:-

(1) The court may make an order under this rule where –

(a) 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

(b) 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.

(2) Where paragraph (1) applies, the court may –

(a) disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed; or

(b) order the party at fault or that party’s legal representative to pay costs which that party or legal representative has caused any other party to incur.

The Case

The Defendants applied under CPR 44.11(2)(b) on the basis that the Claimants’ conduct had been “unreasonable or improper”. There was no suggestion that the Claimants’ legal representatives had acted improperly or that there had been a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction.

Summary of Judgment

The court held that:-

  1. An application under CPR 44.11 is not a vehicle to allow the paying party to have a “second bite of the cherry”, and that issues which were before the trial judge (or which the parties were reasonably capable of bringing to the trial judge’s attention) could not be considered on such an application;

2. The conduct complained of must have been relevant to the proceedings;

3. There is a high bar for establishing that the conduct was unreasonable; and

4. The sanctions the court can impose are limited.

Conclusion

It is important that solicitors and advocates ensure that issues of conduct are raised at trial and are incorporated into the order for costs.

The issues which the court can consider are wide-ranging but should generally have some relevance to the proceedings.

There is a high bar to establishing that conduce was unreasonable, that “unreasonableness” is to be interpreted narrowly, and is conduct which is so bad as to “permit no reasonable explanation” or which “the consensus of professional opinion would regard as improper”.

The sanction which the court can impose will generally be restricted to disallowing the costs which have been incurred as a result of the unreasonable conduct.