Civil Costs Case Law Update – July 2023
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2023] EWHC 1527 (Comm) Dias J 28 June 2023. In proceedings in which the court had ordered the claimant on 8 November 2013 to pay 85% of the defendant’s costs of the action, subject to detailed assessment, interest only became due upon the issue of the Final Costs Certificate. Accordingly, interest accruing over the preceding six years was recoverable, but no arrears could be collected for any period before that back to 8 November 2013 due to the operation of s.24 Limitation Act 1980.
SLEAFORD BUILDING SERVICES LIMITED v ISOPLUS PIPING SYSTEMS LIMITED [2023] EWHC 1643 (TCC) Alexander Nissen KC 4 July 2023. An offer under CPR Part 36 by the claimant to waive interest on the principal sum claimed was a not genuine offer. It followed that it was unjust to permit recovery of the additional CPR 36.17(4) benefits, although the claimant would have the costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis as there had been no defence to the claim to enforce an adjudicator’s award.
Brassington v Knights Professional Services Limited [2023] EWHC 1568 (Ch) HHJ Hodge 30 June 2023. A solicitor who had acted acting as a court-appointed deputy under the Mental Health Capacity Act 2005, and who had engaged her firm to act in a professional capacity in connection with the deputyship, had not assumed personal liability for payment of the firm’s unrecovered fees, disbursements and expenses.
Santiago v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2023] EWCA Civ 838 13 July 2023. In proceedings for damages for personal injury in a road traffic accident in which the Portuguese claimant had been hurt, the fees of an interpreter were recoverable as a disbursement falling within CPR 45.29I(h). The overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2)(a) had been amended to add the words “….and can participate fully in the proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence”. An interpretation of sub-paragraph (h) that precluded the recovery of reasonably incurred interpreter’s fees was not in accordance with the overriding objective because it would tend to hinder access to justice by preventing a vulnerable party or witness from participating fully in proceedings and giving their best evidence.
Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 844 Vos MR, Lewison, Simler LJJ 14 July 2023. At first instance, the court had been correct to hold that the claimant’s claim for detailed assessment was statute barred under s 70(4) Solicitors Act 1974 because payment had been made by deduction of funds over one year earlier. Neither the Act nor the authorities provided any warrant for a requirement that there must be a “settlement of account”. Payment was to be construed as including the deduction of fees payable under a statutory bill with the knowledge and consent of the paying client.
Henderson and Jones v Stargunter Ltd [2023] EWHC 1849 (TCC) Neil Moody KC 19 July 2023 Relief from sanctions given where the Defendant had filed a costs budget in time that was “materially incomplete”, and had served a “replacement” budget which was five days late. The breach was neither serious nor significant. The breach had not disrupted the proceedings, and the costs budgeting exercise undertaken at the CCMC was specifically directed to proportionality having regard to the value of the claim.
R (on the application of PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] SC 28 -July 26, 2023. Reversing the decision of the Divisional Court, the Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) made by the respondents were damages-based agreements (DBAs) within the meaning of s.58AA Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, where the funder was entitled to recover a percentage of any damages recovered. As the LFAs had not complied with the statutory requirements for DBAs, they were unenforceable.
