Tag: law costs draftsman leeds

Reductions to costs won’t be applied automatically- rules the High Court

ujjainimistryLeave a comment

Where a paying party requests a reduction in costs on the basis that “there is always a reduction,” the request will not necessarily be granted and a lower figure automatically awarded, where the costs are deemed reasonable and proportionate.

In his decision in Next Generation Holdings Ltd & Anor v Finch & Ors [2023] EWHC 2925 (Ch), HHJ Johns KC said that it ‘would be wrong’ to lower any costs payable, simply on the assumption that reductions are often made.

Background Information

The case involved a financial dispute which arose following a Share Purchase Agreement. Subsequently, allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation were made against the Defendant, who proceeded to seek a contribution from a Third Party (KD).

At the end of the 3-week trial in June 2023, HHJ Johns KC decided that the third party was not liable, but the initial defendants were.

A consequential judgment on matters resulting from the initial judgment, including costs, was handed down on 17 November 2023.

Summary Assessment

The sum of £65,640 plus VAT was sought by the third party for costs, which included advice and representation by the direct access barrister instructed on her behalf, with this figure including a sum of £52,500 for representation at trial. It was at this stage that Counsel for the Defendants, sought a reduction of costs on the basis that ‘there always is’ […] a reduction in costs. He also insisted that the hourly rate of Counsel, at £495, was too high and that trial preparation claimed, at over 5 days was too long.

Delivering judgment, HHJ Johns KC opined that the £52,500 trial fee was reasonable for a complex fraud trial that involved a significant amount of documentation. It was highlighted that the role of the Third Party’s Counsel was a smaller role than that of the other parties instructed Solicitors but five days trial preparation was proportionate in the matter.

The suggestion that the hourly rate was too high was also immediately dismissed, on the basis that the guideline rate for an equivalent Solicitor was £512. Furthermore, the Defendant’s Counsel fees of £525,425 were also deemed demonstrative of the fact that the sums claimed by the Third Party’s Counsel were proportionate. HHJ Johns KC considered that the total sum of £65,640 was “well within the range of proportionate figures” and it would have been wrong for any reductions to have been made, especially considering the fact the Third Party would have been defending a claim with a value of over £3 million if found liable. 

This case demonstrates that to obtain reductions to costs claimed, paying parties must have legitimate reasons for seeking to do so.

Ujjaini Mistry is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Understanding the E-bill once assessed

elliescallyLeave a comment

At Clarion, we prepare over 2500 Court of Protection bills of costs each year to be assessed by the Senior Court Costs Office. We also review the bills once they have been assessed, monitor the common reductions and give advice to our clients on the outcomes of their assessment.

With the introduction of the e-bill, it can be more difficult to understand what has been reduced and the total costs allowed upon assessment. Below is a quick guide on how to understand the Costs Officer’s reductions.

Time allowed

Column K on Tab 6 of the e-bill which is labelled “Time Allowed” shows the amount of units allowed by the Costs Officer for each respective entry. If the amount of units have been changed from the original amount, the box will be highlighted as yellow and the new amount allowed will have been entered by the Costs Officer.

Fee earner allowed

Column M on Tab 6 of the e-bill labelled “FE Allowed” shows the fee earner/grade of fee earner. Again, if the fee earner has been changed by the Costs Officer, the box will be highlighted as yellow. The Costs Officer will use “A” for a Grade A fee earner, “B” for a Grade B fee earner, “C” for a Grade C fee earner and “D” for a Grade D fee earner. Please review Tab 4 which is where the fee earners are shown to ascertain whether all the rates have been allowed as claimed in the original bill. If a fee earners rate has been changed, the box will be highlighted as yellow and the new rate will have been entered by the Costs Officer, which will subsequently apply to all work entries shown on Tab 6. If you scroll down on this page, the Grades used and created by the Costs Officer will be shown.

The Costs Officer’s Comments

Column Z called “Finding text” shows the reasons as to why the Costs Officer has reduced the entry. Tab 17 deciphers the codes the Costs Officer may use and are shown below. These codes cover the most common reasons for reductions seen across COP assessments:

Total allowed

Tab 12 is now a pre-populated bill summary document based on the changes made in the earlier tabs, and shows clearly how much the profit costs were originally, and how much has been allowed on assessment, as well as the allowed VAT amount and whether the Costs Draftsman’s fee has been allowed or reduced.

Please get in touch with us at Costs.Support@Clarionsolicitors.com if you require any assistance to understand the e-bill once assessed. We can help provide you with advice in relation to whether we think you should appeal the reductions, what you can appeal and what you cannot appeal. We can also assist with drafting a request for reassessment letter. It is very important that you understand the reductions made to ensure that you’re happy with the outcome of the assessment.

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

Kenton v Slee Blackwell [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO)

ujjainimistryLeave a comment

Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker found that providing a ‘hopelessly inaccurate estimate’ and an inadequate risk assessment regarding a success fee will result in the claim for costs against the client being decreased significantly.

Background

In Kenton v Slee Blackwell [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO), the Claimant sued her previous solicitors who had acted for her in a professional negligence claim against another firm, ABC. They had entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) in May 2018, with a success fee of 80% if the claim concluded before trial and 90% if it concluded at trial. After mediation, ABC agreed to pay Kenton’s costs in the sum of £138,000.

Slee Blackwell, subsequently, sent Ms. Kenton a bill which amounted to approximately £342,000, where approximately £90,000was payable to the Claimant after damages.

The Defendant’s did not adduce their own evidence or cross-examine Ms Kenton’s witness statement.

But this raised numerous concerns and questions by the Claimant as she had relied on the estimates provided by the Defendant’s, as well as the success fee outlined in the CFA. Judge Gordon-Saker addresses the two key issues of: reliance on costs estimates, and the risk assessment in creating the success fee. This blog will explore his reasoning and decision in turn.

Costs Estimate

Ms Kenton clearly relied on the estimates provided by the Defendant; it was one of the reaons why, she decided to proceed with them to act on her behalf. Slee Blackwell’s estimates outlined as follows:

£5,000 to £20,000 if settlement was reached before issuing of proceedings.
or
£30,000 to £50,000 if the case went to a contested hearing.

In addition to the above estimates, Slee Blackwell’s Ms Slade also explained how she was ‘yet to have a single case where [her] basic fees have been £100k […] the closest is £85k with a fully contested trial’. So, it was expected, from the Claimant’s point of view, that fees would not exceed this, especially since the case settled prior trial.

Unfortunately, the reliance on the estimates by the Claimant was heavily disputed by the Defendants, claiming that it would have been ‘unreasonable’ as it would not have accounted for the ‘unanticipated work required in considering the documents from ABC’. They argued that Ms Kenton did not complain about the original estimates after the costs exceeded £100k as per the costs spreadsheets that were sent to her 5 times over the period of the claim.

However, Judge Gordon-Saker found in the Claimant’s favour that the estimate was ‘inadequate’ and ‘a reasonable estimate of profit costs would have been about £50,000 before issue of proceedings’– not between £5,000 and £20,000. The Defendant’s did not provide a reason as to why the costs far exceeded the estimate and the Judge deemed it would be ‘reasonably expected for [the client] to pay a figure close to the estimate upon which she relied’’. He also added how the Claimant did not have the opportunity to ‘do something different’ as she had already signed the CFA and knew she would ultimately be liable if she tried to terminate it- ‘she could not escape it’. Therefore, £40,000 was the sum that the Claimant was expected to pay.

Success Fee

A risk assessment was carried out by the Defendant’s, which justified the success fees of 80% or 90% (as explained above). Mr Brighton, for the Defendant’s, argued to the Court that the success fees were reasonable and in accordance with the uncertainties involved and was given to the Claimant in an informed manner, to which she had approved. The Claimant contended this line of reasoning by stating these fees were unreasonably high.

Judge Gordon-Saker also agreed with the Claimants in this issue in that the risk assessment was ‘lacking’ and, therefore, there was no informed approval of the Claimant in accordance with CPR 46.9 (3) and (4). He points to paragraph 37 from Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 527 where informed approval means “that the approval was given following a full and fair explanation to the client” and Judge Gordon-Saker clearly states that the assessment was not a ‘proper assessment of the prospects of successes.’  The risk assessment that would be deemed reasonable and realistic would have generated a success fee of 50% of the basic charges; which was the final decision of the Court in this matter.

Summary

This case emphasises the importance of informed communication with the client, alongside the significance of correctly estimating figures and costs as the figures produced and presented to the client could be the last factor that contributes to the client’s decision in proceeding with the case. Solicitor’s should set out all estimates and charges in a clear format and any risk assessment’s should be undertaken with all factors of the case considered. 

Ujjaini Mistry is a Paralegal in Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Team. You can contact her at ujjaini.mistry@clarionsolicitors.com or on 07436033368.

Proposals for change to Practice Direction on Interim Remedies and Security for Costs

Bethany CollingsLeave a comment

Introduction

At present, the Civil Procedure Rule Part 25 has two Practice Directions: Practice Direction 25A and Practice Direction 25B. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee confirmed within their most recently approved minutes (attached below) that a new shorter Practice Direction will be introduced. 

Agreed key points include:

  • Applications and evidence (Rule 25.3) should contain a signpost to Part 23 (general rules applications and court orders) to assist users;
  • Under evidence (Rule 25.7) it was noted that the reason why notice was given is a material fact and an obligation already exists, without the need for it to be expressly provided for in the rules;
  • There is a need for the supervising solicitor provision under the provision for service, timing and individuals involved (Rule 25.17) is to be redrafted;
  • Form numbers should be replaced with “approved form”;
  • Other drafting revisions as noted by the Secretariat, to be adopted for further review and resolution, prior to consultation; and
  • Remaining provisions within the Practice Directions that are not within the draft reformed rules, could be removed altogether because:
  1. the reference to out of hours contact details can be done by a signpost and appropriate web information;
  2. the reference to finding a Supervising Solicitor from the Law Society or London Solicitors Litigation Association can be removed, because it is in relevant Court Guides;
  3. the statement about privilege is a statement of the law and does not need to be repeated in a Practice Direction in this way; and
  4. the statement that applications for interim remedies in IP cases ought to go to the Chancery Division does not need to be made here because that is the effect of the relevant rules already.

Post meeting it was confirmed that paragraph 25.1(1)(p) (the reference to continuations subject to guarantees under Article 9 of Directive 2004/48/EC) can be removed because it is unnecessary. It was confirmed that the remedy is available in the courts irrespective of its being listed in that rule in that way and the reference to the Directive is potentially confusing.

There will also be a review of courts forms, specifically the:

  • N244 Application notice;
  • N16A Application for injunction;
  • N361 Notice of application for relief in pending action;
  • PF43 Application for security for costs; and
  • PF44 Order for security for costs.

Bethany Collings is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact her at bethany.collings@clarionsolicitors.com or on 07774951949.

CPR Committee MinutesDownload

Estimated time or pure imagination?

Helen ApplebyLeave a comment

In Ikin -v- Shawbrook Bank Limited (2023) the judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon Saker looks at the issues surrounding estimated time and contains many points for litigators to take on board. Remember, the responsibility lies not just with the person preparing the Bill but with the Solicitor certifying the accuracy of the Bill.

Brief background

This case involved several Claimants, who brought claims of misrepresentation by finance companies regarding the installation of solar panel systems. 9 Claimants were represented by the same Solicitor. One claim for costs was assessed (at nil) by Regional Costs Judge Baldwin, “The Kinder Claim”. The remaining 8 claims were transferred to the SCCO, to assess counsel’s fees, the expert’s fees and profit costs.

In 2 of the bills (Ikin and Walsh), there were identical generic time entries claimed (18 in total). They were identical in both wording and time claimed.

Part 18 Requests were served, requesting clarification as to whether any time within the Bills was estimated. The response was bland and the Claimants were asked to provide a schedule of estimated time – this was never produced.

On Assessment

The first Bill to be assessed, Scott, was found to be riddled with issues. No time recording ledger was provided and it was evident that no time had been recorded within the substantive action. In truth, almost all the profit costs claimed had been estimated by the Costs Draftsman, some of which were not supported by the file of papers.

The Judge requested an explanation from the Claimants’ Solicitor. A Witness Statement from the conducting Solicitor confirmed she “had no experience of dealing with costs in this type of claim and so had instructed KE Costs (“KEC”), a firm of costs lawyers, “who indicated they had experience of dealing with similar costs arising out of solar claims in the North East”. Miss Wall said that she had assumed “that the descriptions given [of the work recorded in the bill] were fair representations of the work that had been done”. When checking the bill before signing it, she made sure that all the disbursements had been included and “that each stage of the case has been accurately identified”. However she did “not sit there and look at every single line individually and check the accuracy of every single line, because that just seems disproportionate”. She had relied on the expertise of the people she was instructing.

Amended Bills were lodged with the Court where by the descriptions to the time had been updated, however, the sums and time claimed remained unchanged. The amended Bill in Ikin was claimed at £29,774.90 and assessed at £9,250.00.

Ruling and Conduct point

The judge considered the issues relating to the Claimants’ Solicitor’s conduct.  In particular the importance of the Solicitor’s signature on a bill of costs. In this case, there was a clear misconduct point, the Judge found the bills were not accurate and claimed costs the Claimants would not have been liable to pay to Parkerwall (their instructed Solicitor). The Judge imposed two sanctions. The assessed costs were reduced by 60% and the Claimant’s Solicitor was ordered to pay 75% of the Defendant’s costs of the assessment on the Indemnity Basis.

Civil Procedure Rules

“This is an appropriate case in which to disallow costs under r.44.11(2)(a). The Claimants’ legal representatives have claimed costs which their clients were not entitled and have attempted to mislead the Court. In Gempride Ltd -v- Bamrah (2018), the Court of Appeal substituted an order that one half of the profit costs otherwise payable under Part 1 of the Claimant’s bill should be disallowed. That followed findings that the Claimant Solicitor had certified a bill which claimed an hourly rate in excess of the rate that she was obliged to pay and had wrongly stated in her replies that BTE insurance was not available to her. There was no finding of dishonesty.

It seems to me that the present cases are comparable. Eight bills have either been reduced significantly or have been agreed in significantly reduced amounts as a result of the misleading entries and the overestimation of time. As the parties have agreed global figures for profit costs and disbursements in the six unassessed cases, rather than disallow one half of the profit costs I would disallow a smaller proportion of the total figures.”

Costs follow the event

The Judge’s attention then turned to the costs of the detailed assessment. “Clearly this is a case where the court should make a different order to the usual order that the paying party pays the costs of the receiving party (CPR 47.20(1)). The conduct of the receiving parties’ solicitors reasonably required investigation. That led to a significant lengthening of the detailed assessment hearings. But for that investigation, the hearings might have been avoided completely. The conduct has been found to be wanting, and the bills have been reduced substantially.

Without an order under r.44.11(2)(b), the appropriate order under r.47.20 would have been that the Claimants should pay at least a proportion of the Defendants’ costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. As between the Claimants and their solicitors, the latter should bear those costs.

Some time was spent investigating the fees of counsel and the experts, which, in the event, did not lead to significant reductions. Whatever apparent irregularities there were in billing, the work had been done and the Claimants were entitled to recover the costs of that work. The Claimants should be entitled to the costs of those issues, but they were a relatively small part of the whole. The appropriate order under r.47.20 would have been that the Claimants should pay 75 per cent of the Defendants’ costs.

The fault, however lies, at the door of the Claimants’ Solicitors, rather than the Claimants, and so the appropriate order is that the Claimants’ Solicitor should pay those costs under r.44.11(2)(b). On any view the conduct of the Claimants’ Solicitor has taken these cases “out of the norm” and it is appropriate that the costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis.”

Summary

This brings home the importance of accurate time recording and certification by Solicitors. It remains the Solicitors responsibility to ensure that the certificate of accuracy guarantees the accuracy of the costs claimed.

Helen Appleby is an Associate in Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Team. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Civil Justice Council Report on Costs and the Impact on Court of Protection Costs

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

Yesterday, the Civil Justice Council publishes their costs consultation responses and recommendations: https://www.judiciary.uk/civil-justice-council-costs-review-final-report/

Four main areas were considered; costs budgeting, guideline hourly rates, pre-action and digitisation and consequences of the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs, with guideline hourly rates being the main area that had a potential to impact Court of Protection costs.

With respect to Guideline Hourly Rates, the majority of respondents found that the Guideline Hourly Rates had a useful role both as a starting point for summary and detailed assessment and indicate to the market generally the rates that would be considered reasonable by the Courts.

Almost all respondents believed that the Guideline Hourly Rates should be frequently updated as to ensure they serve their commercial purpose. However, views were mixed as to the frequency of which they were updated.

Abandoning the Guideline Hourly Rates was considered, however this was largely disagreed with by the respondents, with an argument that it would lead to uncertainty and cause difficulties for judges.

Various changes were considered, particularly as many respondents applying Guideline Hourly Rates outside of London noted that these were set considerably lower than the London hourly rates. A strong view was set that guideline hourly rates for London and elsewhere should not be different. Another suggestion was that the bands should reflect the complexity of the work as opposed to the location where the work was carried out.

It was recommended that the Guideline Hourly Rates be retained and in the short term, measures should be taken to create a new band for complex, high value and commercial work regardless of the location where the work was carried out. Also recommended was that Counsel’s fees should be assessed by reference to a guideline hourly rate. Further, when considering a departure from the Guideline Hourly Rates, the test being applied should be clearly stated.

Longer term recommendations included retaining the rates for the next five years, with a view to carrying out a Detailed Review at the end of the five years. Also recommended was a working group to ensure a satisfactory methodology can be identified and put in practice. Index linking was recommended to be carried out annually, in order to remove the need to carry out a form of detailed review on a regular basis. This will reflect the position of the market.

Overall, the immediate impact of the review is minimal to Court of Protection costs, however the Civil Justice Council will now consider how these recommendations are taken forward.

If you have any questions, please contact Laura Gillin at Laura.Gillin@clarionsolicitors.com

Reductions to COP assessments and what you need to know about them

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

At Clarion, we prepare over 2500 Court of Protection bills of costs per year to be assessed by the Senior Court Costs Office. We also review the bills once they have been assessed and monitor the common reductions. Based on our experience, we have identified the 5 most common reductions and the reasoning behind the same. The below 5 reductions are in line with published case law and are therefore not likely to be allowed if a re-assessment is requested.

Arranging payments

You may notice that arranging payments are reduced throughout the bill of costs. This is in line with the Case of Jamie Walker (2002) whereby Master O’Hare defined checking the file to ensure an invoice has not already been paid, checking sufficient funds are in the account and writing a cheque and getting it signed as non-fee earner work. Arranging payments and considering invoices are typically reduced to 3 minutes within the bill of costs at Grade D rates in line with this. We therefore suggest payments and considering invoices are delegated to a Grade D fee earner. This is something that the Professional Deputies Forum would like to challenge in the future, as significant payments require consideration and often approval above Grade D rates. We hope that this case law will be reconsidered in the future.

Enclosure letters

Where you may have sent a letter enclosing payment of an invoice or an email confirming settlement of an invoice, this will be classed as an ‘enclosure letter’. In line with the case of Leighanne Radcliffe (2004), letters were reduced from the standard rate of 6 minutes to 3 minutes within the bill of costs. We therefore recommend that enclosure letters are delegated to a junior fee earner and the time is limited where possible to prevent overbilling.

Two fee earners at an attendance

If you have claimed two fee earners in attendance, in our experience, it will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Typically, the second fee earner’s time is struck out or reduced. In the case of Garylee Grimsley (1998) and further to R v LegalAid Board Ex Parte Bruce (1991), two fee earners at an attendance were reduced as it was deemed to be duplicative work. It stated, “in so far as expense is involved in adding to this stock in trade, it is an overhead expense and not something that can be charged to the client”. Therefore, we recommend that two fee earners should only be claimed at an attendance whereby it is necessary and reasonable to do so, as there is a higher cost to the Protected Party. Cases where two fee earners may be considered reasonable are where there is a significant safety risk or the second fee earner has different expertise, but this time is still subject to assessment and it’s important that the reasoning is clear within your file notes to justify the attendance of both fee earners.

High level of contact with the Protected Party

You may see a reduction occur whereby there is a high level of contact with the Protected Party, as it is seen to be the Deputy’s duty to keep the costs at a minimum for the Protected Party. Excessive contact would lead to a higher level of costs, which is not in the best interests of the Protected Party. A reduction could occur in line with the case of Trudy Samler (2001). This case raises the question of whether the contact was instigated by the Protected Party and whether the Deputy should be paid for such contact. Excessive contact with the Protected Party could therefore be reduced due to this case and we recommend that Deputy’s keep an eye on this. We recommend that Deputies try and manage the levels of contact with any party and involve other professionals to support the Protected Party or their family in order to manage costs.

Record keeping

Work in relation to updating the Protected Party’s financial records is typically reduced by the Costs Officers on assessment. In the case of Philpott (2015- unwritten), Master Haworth stated “It seems to me that the inputting of data into P’s ledger is not fee earning work. At most it is bookkeeping which, to my mind, is an overhead of a solicitor’s practice. This work has to be distinguished from for example, reviewing or perusing the data to come to a decision as to what then needs to be done with a P’s funds. To my mind that may well amount to fee earning work for which the solicitors can charge separately at the appropriate rate.” Therefore, we recommend that the work is distinguished in this way in order to avoid the reduction on assessment and the word ‘updating’ should also be avoided.

We are happy to review the assessed bills and provide advice to any professional Deputy who is not happy with the outcome of their assessment. Please contact Casey for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

A Local Authority v PG & Ors [2023] EWCOP 9

hawamayetLeave a comment

 

This case concerns P’s views in relation to contact with care workers and receiving care where P’s capacity may fluctuate.

Background

P is a 34-year-old woman with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, and mild learning disability. She currently lives in a supported living placement. Before then, she lived with her mother where a deterioration in her mental health led to her being admitted under s2 of the Mental Health Act. There had been a number of incidents involving P around drugs, alcohol and approaching younger men in public and it was necessary for the Judge to consider whether P had capacity.

Views of the Social Worker and the Medical Expert

At the hearing, a social worker talked of potential triggers for P’s behaviour and Dr Jordan King, who is a Highly Specialist Clinical Psychologist at the Intensive Support Team of the Adult Neurodevelopmental Services for a NHS Trust, prepared a report for s.49 Mental Capacity Act 2005 purposes. Dr King gave oral evidence to the Court and was cross examined regarding P’s fluctuating capacity and the circumstances in which this occurred. Dr King explained that when P was calm, she could assess and weigh up risks but when faced with a trigger, P would become agitated and would struggle with weighing up and understanding information.

Conclusion

A Judgement was made that P should be deemed as lacking capacity, but emphasis was placed on the fact that when being assisted by the care workers, P’s autonomy should be protected, and interference should be kept to minimal levels to keep P safe.

The Judge considered the complexities of the fluctuating capacity for P and the difficulties the care workers would face in having to exercise a complicated decision-making process in order to decide whether at any individual moment P did or did not have capacity. This would then vary depending on the individual care worker, and how much of the particular episode they had witnessed. The Judge deemed that the result of this would fail to protect P, probably have minimal benefit in protecting her autonomy and in practice make the law unworkable.

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

E-Bill FAQs – How does the new Court of Protection E-Bill work?

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

From 1 November 2022 the COP E-Bill came into force. This will look slightly different to the Bills that COP practitioners are used to and will include some additional information including various categories and a separate part for the inclusion of P’s assets. We recently participated in a successful pilot scheme and will be submitting all Bills from 1 November 2022 in this new format.

Below are some common queries about the E-Bill and how to resolve these.

How does the Deputy or person authorised by the firm to sign on behalf of the Deputy certify the Bill of Costs?

The Deputy or authorised person is still required to certify the Bill as before. However, on the new E-Bill format the legal representative’s name can be typed or printed into the ‘Certification’ tab. Please be aware that the ‘Post Assessment Certificates’ section is only to be certified once you are requesting the Final Costs Certificate following assessment.

Where will information relating to any interim payments taken be entered?

Similarly to the PDF Bills, the E-Bill requires you to disclose any interim payments taken on account of costs for the period. This information should be entered on the ‘Certification’ tab in the first box.

How will the new E-Bill be E-filed using the SCCO portal?

The process for E-filing the Bill of Costs remains very much the same. You are still required to submit the certified Bill, Order, certified N258B and disbursement evidence as before, but use the new options on the E-filing service beginning ‘COP E-Bill’. If the Bill and N258B are not certified by an authorised person, then the submission will be rejected by the SCCO.

What will happen to the E-Bill on assessment?

Once the E-Bill is received and approved by the SCCO, it will be allocated to a Costs Officer who will review and assess in the usual way. The Costs Officer is able to make changes to the Bill where appropriate and the E-Bill will recalculate this automatically. The Costs Officer will use a series of codes and mark these on the E-Bill so that you can determine the reasons given for the reductions.

How will the E-Bill be returned following assessment?

The E-Bill now includes a contact email address section on the front sheet, which should be completed when drafting the Bill. Following assessment, the E-Bill will be sent via email to the address provided.

How should the E-Bill be served on interested parties where required?

If you are required to serve the Bill on interested parties then this should be provided to them as a PDF version of the E-Bill. Please request this from your Costs Draftsperson who would be more than willing to assist.

How can I ensure my E-Bill is compliant with new the new requirements?

There are some new requirements when using the E-Bill format that are likely to cause some minor issues if they are missed. Below are some ways in which you can assist your Costs Draftsperson in ensuring the E-Bill is ready to be submitted to the SCCO.

SCCO reference – there is a section on the front sheet that relates to the unique SCCO reference for each matter. This can be inputted prior to submission to the SCCO to help avoid any rejections based on the matter already existing. Please provide the SCCO reference to your Costs Draftsperson if known.

OPG105 estimated costs – there is an increased emphasis on providing the OPG105 estimated costs for the period when using the E-Bill. Please provide the OPG105 costs estimate to your Costs Draftsperson so that this can be included in the Bill.

P’s assets – the E-Bill now includes a specific section relating to P’s assets so that the Costs Officer can consider these. Please provide this information to your Costs Draftsperson and they will include it in the Bill accordingly.

Fee earner rates – please provide a breakdown of the fee earners who have worked on the matter and their date of professional qualification so that these can be included in the Bill.

Amendments – if you require any amendments to the E-Bill please consult your Costs Draftsperson. The E-Bill uses complex algorithms to calculate the totals within the Bill and any changes made could affect these and corrupt the Bill. We therefore recommend that you ask your Costs Draftsperson to make any amendments you require, rather than attempting this yourself, as it could cause issues with the E-Bill later down the line.

The introduction of the COP E-Bill will revolutionise the COP sector and should have a positive impact on assessment times and also result in less administration time following assessment, as the Bill is automatically recalculated in this format.

Additional information on E-Bills can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/electronic-bills-in-court-of-protection-cases-pilot-in-the-senior-courts-costs-office/

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

Summary of the updates from the SCCO regarding COP Assessment Delays

Stephanie KayeLeave a comment

Yesterday, the SCCO have released a further notice in relation to the ongoing delays with COP assessments.

In summary, turnaround is as follows at present:

  • Bills received at the beginning of March are currently being assessed
  • The Admin Team are processing the return of assessed bills received back from the Costs Officers in the first week of August
  • New filings for assessment received from the second week of August are being considered for acceptance/rejection
  • Certificate request filings received in the second week of August are currently being reviewed and actioned

Please see the link below for the full notice released:

Notice-to-COP-Customers-22-August-2022Download

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