Date  Headline

  • 29.04.2010
    Adris & Others v. Royal Bank of Scotland & Others (Additional Party: Cartel Client Review Ltd.) [2010] EWHC 941 (QB)
    • Key issues: High Court, non-party costs orders

      In the main action, the solicitors (the additional party) did not obtain insurance for their clients, in breach of their duty.

      This case was concerned with whether by acting in this way, the solicitors had effectively taken “control” of the proceedings, and, if so whether they should be liable for a non-party costs order.

      It was held that by their breach of duty, they were without instructions and so they were in charge of the claim, not the clients.  As a result, a non-party costs order was awarded.

  • 28.04.2010
    Floyd v The Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 906 (QB)
    • Key issues: delay, High Court, Legal Aid

      The main action was a landlord/tenant dispute over an application for possession by the Landlord.

      The tenant obtained legal aid for an appeal to the High Court and for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.  He also further appealed to the House of Lords but lost and he was not covered by the legal aid order.

      An order for execution was subsequently obtained.  Six months after the execution order, the landlord applied for an assessment of those costs covered by legal aid, but this was out of time and so was dismissed.  Permission to appeal was given but the appeal was dismissed as there was no good reason for the delay under either the relevant legal aid Regulations, nor under CPR 3.1.

  • 23.04.2010
    Digicel (St. Lucia) Ltd. & Others v Cable and Wireless PLC & Others [2010] EWHC 888 (Ch)
    • Key issues: Basis of assessment, High Court, Indemnity Basis, party’s conduct

      In the main action it was held that the Claimants did not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol nor was a Letter of Claim sent in relation to the majority of the issued raised.  The Judge also stated that they made allegations which he labelled “speculative” and “weak”.

      This case was concerned with whether the Defendants’ costs should be awarded on the Standard or Indemnity Basis.

      The Judge held that the Defendants had provided enough evidence to justify being awarded costs on the Indemnity Basis and that by their own actions the Claimant had “forfeited the right” to an assessment of the Defendants’ costs on the Standard Basis.

      In relation to the rest of the claim, it was held that the Defendants’ costs were to be assessed on the Standard Basis and, on the facts, were limited to 87.5%.

Thomas Legal Costs

Token House
12 Token House Yard

Thames House
18 Park Street

T: 020 7073 2600
F: 020 7073 2955
E: info@thomas-legal.com