High Court Judge overturns overly generous application of Mitchell guidance
A Costs Judge concludes that the Mitchell guidance does not apply to default judgments contrary to earlier High Court ruling.
The Court of Appeal applies the guidance in Mitchell for the first time, overturning the High Court's decision to grant relief from sanctions for non-compliance with an order requiring service of witness statements by a specified date.
Determination of a relief from sanctions application under the new CPR 3.9 for a failure to serve Notice of Funding.
Court of Appeal guidance on the correct application of CPR r.3.14 and approach to the revised version of CPR r.3.9. Relief from sanctions would not be granted where deadlines were overlooked, so solicitors should not take on so much work that they were unable to meet them.
A Costs Officer conducting a detailed assessment on a standard basis was not precluded from considering whether the claimants' costs should be limited to those recoverable under stages 1 and 2 of the Pre-Action RTA Protocol where there was a consent order in which the defendant agreed to pay the claimants reasonable costs.
Costs that are disallowed for want of retainer should not factor in the calculation of the one fifth rule.
A TCC judge has warned the parties in a £170k dispute over damage to seek "sensible and imaginative solutions" to substantially reduce their combined budgets of around £800k.
The High Court rejected a bid to limit a winning party’s costs to a previously approved budget on grounds that this had been due to an oversight by both the parties and the court.
HHJ Coulson declined to approve "disproportionate and unreasonable" budgets on both sides in a £1.6m professional negligence claim.
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