Chief Master Marsh considers the purpose and effect of commenting on incurred costs at a costs management hearing under CPR 3.15 and PD 3E.
Davis LJ endorses Master Whalan’s approach to detailed assessment where costs budgets have been agreed or approved
Coulson J warns against parties adopting an unrealistic approach to costs budgeting and in particular with regards to Precedent R.
Carr J: “On a detailed assessment on a standard basis, the costs judge is bound by the agreed or approved cost budget, unless there is a good reason to depart from it.”
Briggs LJ decides that cases which commence under the RTA and EL/PL protocols and settle prior to a disposal hearing attract the most generous fixed costs regime
Pre-LASPO 2012 CFA can be transferred between firms, Master Leonard decides
CPR 44.13 should be interpreted in a way that “more justly achieves what is plainly the purpose of the regime as divined from the Rules”, says Edis J.
A motivation of personal trust and confidence between client and fee earner is not necessary to validate an assignment, HHJ Graham Wood QC decides– but admits his judgment may require appellate court review
Part 36 did not preclude a judge from making an issue-based or proportionate costs order where a claimant had only succeeded on some issues. However, the constraints of Part 36 meant that it would be reasonable to deprive a claimant all or part of their costs only if it would be unjust to order otherwise, having regard to “all the circumstances of the case”
A claimant awarded £5,000 in damages was entitled to recover his costs on the standard basis (budgeted at almost £129,000) following a defendant’s “inadequate” capped costs offer, a High Court judge has decided.
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"Tom Winyard is very experienced and knowledgeable in this minefield of costing. He is a very effective communicator and handheld me every step of the way in my dealings with the most aggressive unethical opposing counsel. When the world caved in on me, it was Tom who step-by-step and patiently built the picture to protect his client. After hiring 4 law firms, waste of money and time and did not even achieve anything close to what Tom can offer. It would certainly be detrimental too to any suffering party not to hire Tom Winyard because I have certainly called almost 40 costs firms in London and had no joy with them. Thank you Tom, we will be forever indebted. We are grateful and we thank God for enabling us to find Tom to salvage the most painful event."Linda Chin - Singapore