Case Law

SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053

The Court of Appeal has handed down its Judgment in SG V Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053 – The Claimant was awarded his costs throughout despite accepting a Part 36 Offer out of time. The matter involved a minor injured in a RTA in March 2003 however prognosis was not made until 2011 and the Claimant accepted an offer made in April 2009.  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1053.html

Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc [2012] EWCA CIV 137

The incipitur rule prevails in the county court in CFA cases. Rule 40.8 CPR is (currently) ultra vires in the county court. Thus interest runs from the date of the order giving the right to costs and NOT the date of assessment and the fact that the matter was funded on a CFA does not justify departing from the incipitur rule http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/137.html

PHI Group Limited v Robert West Consulting Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 588

If an Offer does not specifically state a period of not less than 21 days, or any period it would not comply with CPR 36.2(2)(c)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/588.html

Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 987

Where an ATE premium is taken out at the Appeal Stage to cover the risk of being ordered to pay the costs below, the part of the premium relating to that cover is not payable from the other side

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/55.html&query=hawksford&method=boolean

Dockerill (a child by his litigation friend) v Tullett [2012] EWCA Civ 184

Costs entitlement in a minor claim where damages were less than £1000.00

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/184.html&query=dockerill&method=boolean

The Liverpool ATE Insurance Premium Test CaseS 2012

It has been held that it is reasonable to takeout ATE cover at the outset of litigation, regardless of whether a case is within the Protocol or not.  Both single and staged premiums are legitimate and although staged premiums are reasonable it is not relevant.

Click Here to view the Case.

Noorani v Calver [2009] EWHC 592 (QB) – 25th March 2009

This case provides guidance as to the factors a court will take into account when deciding whether to award costs to a party on an indemnity basis. Coulson J considered two important elements of the dispute, being, the parties’ pre-trial conduct and the nature of the claim.
For more information click here

Roach and Matthews v Home Office [2009] EWHC 312 (QB) – 25th February 2009

Costs of full representation at inquest were recoverable as costs of the civil action.
For more information click here

Roche v Newbury Homes Limited [2009] EW Misc 3 EWCC – 10th February 2009

The court found that the pre action disclosure application was a separate cause of action from the substantive claim. It was held that the Claimant could not recover the costs of the PAD application as the CFA did not cover such an application.
For more information click here

Forde v Birmingham CC [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) – 29th January 2009

The court considered the issue of retrospective CFA’s and retrospective success fees.
The court ruled that retrospective CFAs and retrospective success fees are valid in law. In respect of the reasonableness and recoverability of a success fee on a retrospective CFA would be decided on assessment, in the usual way. At paragraphs 138-9 and 144-6 the Judge confirmed there was no requirement to notify the opponent of additional liabilities until the issue of proceedings and that additional liabilities will be recoverable up to the issue of proceedings, even if no notice is given prior to that date, because the rule only imposes a sanction for the period in which notice was required (i.e. the issue of proceedings).
For more information click here

C v W [2008] EWCA 1459 – 19th December 2008

The court determined the approach of settling the success fee in circumstances where liability had been admitted. This case also deals with the way in which the Part 36 risks should be taken into account. The court allowed a 20% success fee.
For more information click here

Kilby v Gawith [2008] EWCA Civ 812 – 19th May 2008

The Court of Appeal considered whether a success fee of 12.5% under the fixed costs regime in CPR Part 45 II could be disallowed. The Defendant disputed the Claimant’s entitlement to the success fee, on the basis that she already had BTE Insurance. The Court of Appeal held that irrespective of whether or not BTE was available, the Court did not have the power under CPR r45.11(1) to disallow or vary the fixed success fee as set out in the rule. The court also stated “the purpose of the new rules was to provide fixed levels of remuneration which might operate on a swings and roundabouts basis, which was regarded as fair taken as a whole”.
For more information click here

 

Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd, Hibberd v Fawcett Old Ltd and Jones v Attrill [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 – 11th December 2008

The Court of Appeal considered the enforceability of Accident Line Protect CFA’s. It was found that there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e) of the CFA Regulations 2000 in the Accident Line Protect Test Cases.
For more information click here

Crane v Cannon’s Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352

The Court of Appeal ruled that costs in respect of cost draftsmen should be claimed as a profit costs in which a solicitor will be entitled to apply a success fee (if applicable). This decision applies to cost draftsmens’ fees undertaken in house as well as work which has been delegated to independent cost drafting companies.
For more information click here