I have had an interest in costs, dating from when I worked as a fee earner negotiating my own costs both for Claimant and Defendant firms, prior to being called to the Bar.
Since then, I have dealt with numerous summary assessments both within the fixed costs regime Part 45 and assessments under Part 44. I have appeared in a number of CCMCs where I have argued contested costs budgets as well as appearing in detailed assessments.
Most recent costs cases of interest:
1)Issue: Advocates Fee under Fixed Costs Regime CPR 45 for multiple Claimants
Bhat and Bhat v Adams and LVI, Medway County Court, 17th December 2021, Before DDJ Holmes-Milner
Whether 2 Advocates fees should be paid where 2 Claimants are represented by the same Counsel at trial, following successful claims.
I appeared to represent 2 Claimants in a claim governed by the Low Value Personal Injury RTA Fixed Costs Regime. Defence argued that only 1 Counsel’s fee was payable, referring to Karnicka v Zborek, countered with case of Neary and Neary.
Successfully argued in my favour and 2 Counsel’s fees awarded.
2)Issue: Whether P36 offer involving a claim against 2 Defendants required permission of the Court to be accepted, under CPR36.15.Hayward v Markerstudy Insurance Co Ltd and AIG UK Ltd, Preston County Court, 14th January 2022, before His Honour Judge Dodd.
I acted for D2 at trial, D1 argued that previously compromised claim by way of Part 36 between D2 and Claimant required permission of court as the claim in liability against D1 and D2 was either in the alternative or joint.
If D1 was successful this would render D2 liable for costs of D1, in respect of an adjourned trial.
Argued successfully that the compromise did not require permission as the claim was based on several liability as per CPR 36.15.3, albeit the Particulars of Claim had been drafted in the alternative, this did not reflect the factual assertions of the Claim.
Judge held that D2 was correct and that the claim was advanced on the basis of several liability not joint or in the alternative. Costs payable by D1 to D2, as a consequence.
3)Issue: Costs application under s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 by Defendant
Acting for Prosecution and instructed to deal with trial on landlord licensing and building regulations charges which included an application by Defendant for costs payable by Prosecution, under s.19 - claim in excess of £60,000.
Written arguments prepared both on merit of application and quantum of costs.
Case heard at South Sefton Magistrates Court before District Judge Clarke on 12th October 2021.
At the conclusion of the trial and hearing of application, no costs order was made against the Prosecution.