Search

Costs in the Court of Protection - Court of Protection Rules 2017 -  Rule 19.5  - Departing from the

Costs in the Court of Protection - Court of Protection Rules 2017 - Rule 19.5 - Departing from the general rule that no order should be made for between the parties costs. BP (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v The London Borough of Harrow [2019] EWCOP 20 In this case District Judge Sarah Ellington refused an application for costs by the Applicant. At paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Judgement the Learned District Judge summarised the issues for determination as follows: “For the Applicant, it is submitted that this is a case where it is appropriate to depart from the usual costs rule and to order the costs of the January hearing be paid by the Respondent because of the Responde

Latest Guidance on Proportionality - ERNST MALMSTEN v LARA BOHINC [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch)

Latest Guidance on Proportionality ERNST MALMSTEN v LARA BOHINC [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch) In this Commercial matter the Judgement of The Honourable Mr Justice Marcus Smith provides further guidance on the application of proportionality when assessing between the parties costs. The case further confirms that VAT and the costs of drawing the bill for Detailed Assessment should be excluded when considering proportionality. The proportionality test to be applied when considering the amount to be allowed is helpfully summarised at paragraph 69 of the Judgement: “I consider that the sum of £47,500 should be reduced to a sum of £15,000 (plus, obviously, VAT). My reasons for reaching this figure or –

Part 36 offers – latest ruling refuses to apply consequences to successful party

Since the introduction of the additional consequences within CPR 36.17(4) consequent to a Claimant receiving a judgement in more favourable terms than their own offer, there has been debate about the effect of those additional consequences and how they should operate and be applied. The first major challenge was taken in the matter of Lowin v W Portsmouth & Company in which, at first instance, it was ruled that the cap to costs in provisional assessment was disapplied where a Claimant bettered their own Part 36 offer, due to the award of indemnity costs. However, this was subsequently overruled on Appeal in W Portsmouth & Company v Lowin [2017] EWCA Civ 2172 , with the Asplin LJ in the Court

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