Civil Costs Case Law Update – March 2023
Warburton v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [2023] EWCA Civ 209 Moylan, Phillips, Males LJJ 2 Mar 2023. A claimant who had accepted an offer under CPR Part 36 to settle defamation proceedings, could not thereafter bring a second claim based on breaches of data protection rules. The acceptance had resolved the whole of the pleaded claim, and it would be an abuse of process within the meaning of Henderson v Henderson [1843-60] All E.R. Rep. 378, [1843] to permit him to do so.
King v Stiefel [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) Jacobs J 2 March 2023. A wasted costs application seeking costs against the claimant’s former solicitors and counsel did not pass the “stage 1” test under CPR PD 46 para.5.7(a). The wasted costs exercise was intended to be a simple and summary procedure at a cost proportionate to the sums claimed. Here, the factual and legal background had been complex, with large volumes of documents, and with costs likely to approach or exceed those which the Defendants sought to recover. Application dismissed.
Harlow District Council v Powerrapid Ltd [2023] EWHC 586 (KB) Choudhury J 17 March 2023. An order for the costs “of” the proceedings can include antecedent costs without the words “of and incidental to”. Accordingly, “costs of the inquiry” covered costs “incidental to “ it, with the guiding principles for determining whether such costs would be recoverable being whether they proved of use and service in the action, were relevant to an issue, and were attributable to the defendants’ conduct. Hourly rates: those claimed for the planning team had been between 8% and 41% higher than the Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR). The extent to which the GHR might be a helpful on a detailed assessment was a matter for the costs judge, who had properly focused on the factors in CPR r.44.4(3) and had concluded correctly that the GHR were not a useful starting point.
Wilson v Emmott [2023] EWHC 816 (KB) Saini J 5 April 2023. The claimant, a solicitor, was nonetheless a litigant in person under CPR 46.5 and did not fall within the exception under CPR 46.5(6)(b) as a person “…represented by a firm in which that person is a partner”. During the relevant period, the claimant had been employed by a company, which had paid him under his contract of employment, with no clear basis being discerned under which there could be a computation of financial loss flowing from his work in representing himself. Accordingly, the LIP rate of £19 per hour applied.
O’Sullivan v Holmes and Hills LLP [2023] EWHC 508 (KB) HHJ Gosnall 10 March 2023. Points of Dispute served in detailed assessment proceedings under s.70 Solicitors Act 1974 which asserted that “The time claimed in respect of documents is disputed as being either unnecessarily incurred and/or unreasonable in amount”” did not comply with paragraph 8.2 of the Practice Direction to CPR 47.9. Specific entries had not been identified, which stated concisely the nature and grounds of dispute. That meant that the solicitors could not identify which particular units of work had been disputed and why. The decision in the court below allowing the Points of Dispute was reversed and the appeal allowed.
