Date  Headline

  • 25.02.2014
    JE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192
    • Key areas: Qualified One Way Costs Shifting; costs of appeal; Court of Appeal

      This was an interim application in the Court of Appeal.

      The Appellant’s application’s referred to CPR 52.9A, and stated that this enabled the Court to enforce the rules relating to Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS).

      As a result, she sought an Order that the Respondent pay her costs “in any event” and that the Respondent be prevented to claim its costs from her if she lost.

      The Court held that the application was “attractively presented” but based on a misconception, and was issued “far too late”. It held that CPR 52.9A is designed to enable the Court to enforce costs rules in appeals from, e.g. Small Claims Track, where costs are limited. It also noted that the QOCS rules themselves only applied in specified circumstances, which did not apply here.

      The Court then dismissed the application.

  • 21.02.2014
    Summit Navigation Ltd.; Marin Taknik Denizcilik Ve Danismalik San. Tic. Ltd. Sti v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare SA; Ardaf SA Insurance & Reinsurance Co. [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm)
    • Key areas: security for costs; High Court

      The Claimants in this matter had been ordered to pay £125,000 by way of security by 5th December 2013, and had arranged a bond to be obtained by a broker.

      The brokers were unable to get the relevant person’s signature until 6th December, and the bond was served 1 day late.

      The Defendants wrote to the Claimants stating that due to their non-compliance, the matter was stayed and they would not accept a bond until the stay was lifted.

      The Claimants issued an application for a declaration that the case was not stayed, or any stay was lifted.  The Defendants then issued an application for the case to be stayed due to the non-compliance.

      The Claimants submitted that the terms of the Order suggest that the case was stayed until the bond was provided, but this was rejected.

      The Claimants then sought relief from sanction on the basis that it been complied with.  The Defendants submitted that CPR 3.8 meant that the Claimant had to apply for the stay to be lifted.

      However, the Court then held that the non-compliance was “not material”, and, in any event, the need for the broker’s signature was a good reason for the non-compliance, over which the solicitors had no control.

      The Court also ordered the Defendants to pay the costs of both applications.

  • 18.02.2014
    Ontulmus; MTH Yatcilik; Kaiserwerft GmbH v Collett; Ward & McKenzie (Yacht Consultants) Ltd.; Moore [2014] EWHC 294 (QB)
    • Key areas: security for costs; High Court

      This was an application by the Third Defendant for Security for Costs in a libel action.

      It was issued on the grounds that the First Claimant were outside the EU and the Second and Third Claimants would not have sufficient funds.

      The First Claimant stated that he lived in Germany, but his Claim Form stated Turkey.  However, his solicitors had disclosed documentation showing that he both lived and owned property in Germany, as well as having business connections there.  The Third Defendant’s solicitors served a witness statement from an enquiry agent who went to visit one of the First Claimant’s properties, but found that it was empty.

      On the facts the Court held that the First Claimant was resident in Germany.

      The Court noted that the Second Claimant had been unwilling to disclose up-to-date accounts, while the Third Claimant’s accounts suggested it would not be able to pay the Third Defendant’s costs within time.

      As a result, security was ordered against both companies to cover half of the Third Defendant’s costs.

  • 12.02.2014
    The Bank of Ireland & Anor v Philip Pank Partnership [2014] EWHC 284 (TCC)
    • Key areas: Costs Budgets; High Court

      This was a hearing concerning the Claimant’s Costs Budget.

      The Budget had been filed in advance of the CMC, but did not contain a Statement of Truth.

      The day before the CMC, and 17 days after its service, the Defendant disputed the Budget’s validity, on the grounds that it breached CPR 3.13, and that there was no good reason to justify relief from sanction.

      The Court rejected this on the basis that it was simply a technical argument, and the Budget was simply irregular.

  • 05.02.2014
    Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 168 (QB)
    • Key areas: CFA; capacity; retainer; termination of retainer; High Court

      The Claimant in this action lost capacity to give instructions during the proceedings.

      Two weeks after it was determined that the Claimant no longer had capacity, the solicitors issued an application in the Court of Protection to appoint a Deputy.  The application was heard 2 months after capacity ended, and a Deputy was approved on that date.

      Once the Deputy was appointed the solicitors kept them updated as to costs and queried whether they would be taking over the CFA which the Claimant entered into, but the Deputy did not sign it.

      This appeal was to determine what the effect would be on the CFA.

      At first instance it was held that the retainer terminated, and so Parts of the Bill of Costs were struck-out.  The Claimant appealed.

      The Court held that the manner in which instructions are given does not matter, and this situation would be the same as if a company’s directors all resigned during a claim: the retainer was still in force even though no instructions could be given; that there was only a short delay between the capacity being lost and a Deputy taking over; and in any event, given the facts there parties knew that it was always possible that the Claimant could lose capacity, and so this was part of their agreement.

      As a result, the CFA/retainer was not frustrated.

      The Court also held that if the CFA was frustrated, there was no new retainer.

      Overall, the Bill of Costs was not struck-out.

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