Senior Costs Judge provides insight into decisions on hourly rates, (retrospective) success fees, AT

Senior Costs Judge provides insight into decisions on hourly rates, (retrospective) success fees, ATE premiums and relief from sanctions In a Judgment earlier this month in Various Claimants v MGN Ltd [2016] EWHC B29 (Costs), Master Gordon-Saker provided a fairly breezy review of the factors to be considered on all of these topics. This is the costs part of the now famous “phone hacking” litigation and the case may well be a useful starting reference point for practitioners faced with cases involving such disputes. HOURLY RATES The governing rule is 44.4 which provides that in deciding whether costs are reasonable in amount the court will have regard to all the circumstances including (a) th

Court of Appeal clarifies when Fixed Recoverable Costs apply – Qader & Others v Esure Services L

Clarifying Fixed Recoverable Costs – Court of Appeal provides second judgement within a week There has, of late, been much uncertainty within the profession as to how and when Fixed Recoverable Costs (“FRC”) apply and also more generally as to the ever growing cohort of cases to which they do and are, in the future, projected to cover. The approach adopted by Briggs LJ in the Court of Appeal at the end of last week in the matter of Terrance Bird v Acorn Group PLC appeared to indicate what could be described as a common sense approach to the resolution of such disputes. Today we note that Briggs LJ has adopted a similar approach to interpreting the FRC and their application in given instances


BIRD v ACORN – WHICH FIXED COSTS APPLY? The Court of Appeal has settled the debate as to which fixed costs apply in cases listed for disposal hearings after interlocutory judgment, but which settle before the hearing. In Bird v Acorn Group Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1096, the Court found that in such circumstances the matter would be treated as having been listed for trial and that the applicable fixed costs for that phase should apply. The argument was as to whether the costs as set out in Column 1 or Column 3 in Table 6D in CPR 45.29E should apply on the basis that it could be argued that the matter had not yet been allocated and therefore it was Column 1 which should apply, but equally if the di

Costs Blog

Disclaimer: The content of this blog is provided on a complimentary basis. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of SPH Costing Services Ltd. The content of the blog is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter or generally. Individual Legal advice should be sought from a Lawyer in relation to any specific case or issue. SPH Costing Services Ltd does not accept any responsibility for the correctness of this blog or for any consequences of relying on it.

© 2020 SPH Costing Services Ltd - Registered in England 3194408

Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen