Case Management Refresher

Cost estimates are necessary for fast track claims when the fixed costs regime is not applicable and for non-budgeted cases

In accordance with CPR 28 PD6.1 (4), a cost estimate is required to be filed and served at the same time as the pre-trial check list.  It is stated on the pre-trial checklist (N170) that ‘for legal representatives only: a cost estimate to be filed and served at the same time as the pre-trial check list is filed‘.  Therefore, for all fast track claims where there is not a fixed costs regime in place then a costs estimates should be filed. Furthermore, for non-budgeted multitrack claims a costs estimate should be filed.  What is particularly interesting is that this captures those claims that are not automatically included in the costs management regime, e.g. claims over £10m.

Case management conferences and indemnity basis costs

In accordance with CPR 26 PD 6.6, the court can impose a costs sanction where a party has failed to file a directions questionnaire or failed to provide further information which the court has ordered.  The court will usually order a party to pay on the indemnity basis the costs of any other party who has attended the hearing, summarily assess the amount of those costs, and order them to be paid forthwith or within a stated period.

Disposal hearings

In accordance with CPR 26 PD 12.5(2), Section VI of Part 45 (fast track trial costs) will not apply to a case dealt with at a disposal hearing whatever the financial value of the claim. So, the costs of a disposal hearing will be in the discretion of the court.

Any questions? Please contact Sue at sue.fox@clarionsolicitors.com or call  on 0113 336 3389

“Remuneration on a time basis rewards inefficiency”- says LJ Jackson!

“Remuneration on a time basis rewards inefficiency”- says LJ Jackson!

At the IPA Annual Lecture on 28 January 2016, titled “Fixed Costs – The Time has Come”, LJ Jackson discussed the inevitability of fixed costs, the question that remains unanswered is – to what extent?Read More »

Costs Budgeting in the Court of Protection and the Family Courts

Many areas of law have escaped the automatic Costs Budgeting regime, for instance:

  • Fast Track cases where fixed costs do not apply;
  • Part 8 claims;
  • Insolvency Act claims; and
  • Part 7 claims which exceed £10 million, to name a few.

However the Court is able to order that Costs Management can apply to any case (Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.12 (1); Paragraph 2, PD 3E to CPR Part 3). The case of CIP Properties v Galliford Try Infrastructures Ltd [2014] EWHC 3546 highlights the relevance of Costs Management for high value cases and confirms that the costs of a case where the claim for damages exceeded £10 million could indeed be cost managed.

Although Costs Management can apply to any CPR case, there continues to be many areas of law that it does not apply to.  It is becoming evident that the Costs Management regime is paving the way in how costs are managed by the Court and that other Courts who are not exposed to automatic Costs Budgeting are understanding those benefits and are expressing their views.  The recent judgments of Peter Jackson J in A & B (Court of Protection: Delay & Costs) [2014] EWCOP 8 and of Mr Justice Mostyn in J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam) and V v V [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam) all discuss the need for Costs Management.

Peter Jackson J expressed his opinion that costs of £9,000.00 per month were “extravagant” and “there is a direct correlation between delay and expense”. He further commented that “the court and the parties have a duty to ensure that the costs are reasonable”.

The costs claimed in the family proceedings were described by Mr Justice Mostyn as “grotesque” and “absurd”.

Peter Jackson J requested that the President of the Court of Protection review the management of Court of Protection cases and “believes that time has come to introduce the same disciplines in the Court of Protection as now apply in the Family Court”.

If adopted by the Courts properly, Costs Management can successfully ensure that costs remain proportionate.  It is essential in both the Court of Protection and the Family Courts that cases are managed properly and costs do not escalate as a result of poor management.

If you have any questions or queries in relation to this blog please contact Sue Fox (sue.fox@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 3363389) or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 2460622.