23.02.2010Lewis v Tennants Distribution Ltd.  EWHC 90161 (Costs)
Key issues: CFA, maintenance, SCCO
This case was a preliminary point on an assessment. The case was concerned with allegations of maintenance in a CFA on the grounds of it containing a similar clause to that in Morris v LB Southwark; Sibthorpe v LB Southwark  EWHC B1 (QB).
The Court held that such a clause was valid and did not render the CFA unenforceable.
09.02.2010Drew v Whitbread  EWCA Civ 53
Key issues: Court of Appeal, exaggeration, Fast-Track, Multi-Track, raising points after trial
The main action was an employer’s liability case. It had been allocated to the Multi-Track based on the special damages which were claimed.
On Assessment, the Costs Judge determined that the case had been allocated to the Multi-track due to the Claimant’s exaggeration of his losses, and so decided that costs from 10th March 2006 were to be assessed as if the case had been allocated to the Fast-Track.
The Claimant’s appeal was mainly over that decision. It was also argued that the Defendant should not be able to raise arguments on assessment that it could be assessed in such a way because they had not raised this at Trial, as per Aaron v Shelton.
It was held that the Court had power under CPR 44.3 and 44.5 to allow a party to raise further points; however, the Court also ruled that the Costs Judge was wrong in her decision.
05.02.2010Morris v LB Southwark; Sibthorpe v LB Southwark  EWHC B1 (QB)
Key issues: CFA, High Court, maintenance
The Solicitors acted for the Claimants in these matters under CFAs.
Both CFAs included a clause which stated that the Solicitors would indemnify the Claimant against adverse costs orders.
This case was concerned with whether such a term led to the CFA being unenforceable against claims of maintenance.
It was held that there was no basis for claiming that justice would be affected by the clause and so the CFA was valid.
Thomas Legal Costs
12 Token House Yard
DX 138752 CHEAPSIDE
18 Park Street
T: 020 7073 2600
F: 020 7073 2955