Legal Costs

Those given the job of trying to design the new bill of costs format have been cursed with a herculean task (probably the legal equivalent of mucking out the Augean stables). At the heart of the problem is Lord Justice Jackson’s view that: “The bill format must be compatible with existing time recording systems, so […]

It has been suggested that in the case of Stocker v Stocker [2015] EWHC 1634 the most interesting observation by Mr Justice Warby was: “I readily acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the costs budgeting process does not result in a party being unable to recover the costs necessary to assert their rights.” I would

There has been a certain amount of twaddle written in the Comments section of this blog recently implying that the new J-Codes based bill of costs format is a conspiracy of the few (ie those with a financial interest in costs drafting/costs budgeting software) at the expense of the many (ie by introducing automated bills

Costs budgeting was, in theory, meant to operate akin to summary assessment at the outset of a claim. The serious flaws with the implementation process and numerous practical problems, with which readers will be more than familiar, has made costs budgeting an expensive mess with little of the hoped for benefits being delivered. A new

The requirement from 1 October 2015 to serve a breakdown of the costs claimed for each phase of the proceedings together with the Bill of Costs, where a costs management order has been made, is an odd one. This is clearly intended to be an interim measure until the new Bill of Costs format is

CPR 47.6 is amended from 1 October 2015 such that the documents to be served when commencing detailed assessment will now include: “if a costs management order has been made, a breakdown of the costs claimed for each phase of the proceedings” (The new Model Precedent Q can be found on this link showing the

Readers are probably aware of the male solicitor who, in response to an invitation to connect via LinkedIn to a female barrister, commented on the “stunning picture” on her profile. In turn she publically named and shamed him for his “unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour”. Her LinkedIn profile has since been updated to include the following:

An interesting aside from Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker in BP v Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board [2015] EWHC B13 when considering a case with a pre-1st April 2013 CFA where the new proportionality test applied to work done after 1st April 2013: “On behalf of the Defendant Mr Kiernan told me that

From the Association of Costs Lawyers’ Judicial Round Table on costs management earlier this year: Neil Rose: Has the SCCO seen any cases come through yet? SCJ Gordon-Saker: Not one, as far as I am aware…we are still in the dark as to what will happen. Neil Rose: Any ideas? SCJ Gordon-Saker: I anticipate lots

2015 Award for Most Bizarre Argument Advanced in Replies goes to the following included in reply arguing why costs were not disproportionate in matter which settled pre-trial for £2,500: “At the start of the claim, the Claimant made a Part 36 offer to settle the matter in the sum of £10,000. Relative to the costs