New Format Bill of Costs delayed

New Format Bill of Costs delayed After months of wrangling between Jackson LJ and the Hutton Committee over the format of the new Bill of Costs and how, if at all, it could be made compatible with the J-Codes, the new format being now enshrined within Precedent AB, and the woeful performance of the pilot scheme for electronic Bills of Costs which operated within the SCCO voluntarily over the last 2 years, yet failed to see a single assessment take place, it was with great fanfare that Jackson LJ and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) announced that the new format Bill of Costs would become compulsory in the SCCO from 1 October 2017. However, and less than 3 weeks later, the CPRC has c


WHAT IS THE POINT OF COSTS BUDGETING? NOW WE HAVE THE ANSWER! – Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792. In our two preceding articles under this Heading we have considered the decisions at first instance and on Appeal in the case of Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, in which diverging views as to the status of a Costs Management Order upon Detailed Assessment were reached. The issues have now reached the Court of Appeal, albeit not within the context of Merrix, but it does seem that a definitive view has now been expressed in the case of Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792. In

The high price of a poorly prepared Bill of Costs – Vivienne Jago v Whitbread Group Plc

The proper preparation of a Bill of Costs in any given matter has long been understood to be a key step to the successful recovery of costs on behalf of your client, and is one upon which paying and receiving parties, together with the Court, should rightly have confidence. But what happens when due care and attention is not paid to that preparation, or if there are errors? What can happen to the level of those costs and what sanctions are available to the Courts on assessment? In the matter of Vivienne Jago v Whitbread Group Plc, a matter heard back in October last but only recently reported, Master Whalan spelt out precisely what could occur, and it serves as a stark reminder of the import

Refusal to mediate – sanctions won’t always apply – Gore v Naheed & Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 369

Refusal to mediate – sanctions won’t always apply. Following the decision of Briggs LJ in PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, there has been increased focus on the duties of parties to litigation to consider some form of ADR, most usually mediation. In that case, Briggs LJ said: “In my judgment, the time has now come for this court firmly to endorse the advice given in Chapter 11.56 of the ADR Handbook, that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable, regardless whether an outright refusal, or a refusal to engage in the type of ADR requested, or to do so at the time requested, might have been justified by the

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