logo

Date  Headline

  • 20.08.2010
    Udogaranya v Nwagw [2010] EWHC 90186 (Costs)
    • Key issues: “exceptional circumstances”, CPR 45.12, Part 36 offer, Part 45, RTA, SCCO

      The Claimant in this matter was injured in an RTA which settled pre-issue.

      The Defendant made a Part 36 offer for the whole claim for £4,100.00.  The Claimant accepted the offer but stated that their acceptance excluded any separate claim for credit hire charges.

      The Claimant submitted there was a valid Part 36 offer which entitled him to his reasonable costs, but the Defendant submitted that CPR Part 45, section II applied.

      As a result, Part 8 “Costs-only” proceedings were issued.

      The court held that there was no valid Part 36 offer because the offer letter referred to CPR 36.10, which refers to the costs of proceedings, but proceedings were not commenced.  As a result CPR Part 45, section II applied.

      The Claimant then made further submission under CPR 45.12 which gives the court the ability to award costs greater than the fixed amounts if there are “exceptional circumstances”.

      On the facts, the Court held that CPR 45.12 did apply due to the way the Defendant dealt with the liability issue, stating that “the Defendant was giving the Claimant the run-around”.

      The Court therefore Ordered the costs to be assessed, but reminded the Claimant that under CPR 45.13 the costs must be assessed at more than 20% above the fixed costs else he would have to pay the Defendant’s costs of those proceedings.

  • 03.08.2010
    EG v RS, JS & BEN PCT [2010] EWHC 3073 (CoP)
    • Key areas: control of case; High Court

      This was an Application brought by EG for Permission to Appeal under r. 173 Court of Protection Rules 2007 against an order for costs who was a Solicitor, under r. 157-159.

      At first instance, the Appellant had been ordered to pay the costs from her failed in an Application to be appointed Health & Welfare Deputy of RS in the Court of Protection.  She was ordered to pay the costs of all the other parties.

      It was appealed on three grounds: that it was against her personally, instead of her firm; that it was too wide-ranging because it should have only related to the Hearing; and against the Order in principle.

      The PCT conceded the Appeal; JS accepted that the costs should only relate to the Hearing; while RS disputed the Application in full.

      It was not suggested that there were any procedural or other irregularities against the Order, simply that it was wrong.

      Based on the facts, the Court held that the Order was correct in principle, and in width but that the costs should be paid by ES’s firm, not her personally.

      However, given that the PCT had agreed the Appeal were awarded against them accordingly, and costs in relation to JS were allowed until 25th August 2009, but not afterwards.

      However, given that the Appeal was ultimately rejected, costs were awarded in favour of RS and for JS n relation to the Hearing.

Thomas Legal Costs

Token House
12 Token House Yard
London
EC2R 7AS
DX 138752 CHEAPSIDE

Thames House
18 Park Street
London
SE1 9EQ

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