Cases on Costs
L V LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS (2005) Unreported – Note of Judgment supplied by Bolt Burdon Kemp – Hearing before Master Yoxall on the 22nd November 2005)
L V LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS (2005) Unreported – Note of Judgment supplied by Bolt Burdon Kemp – Hearing before Master Yoxall on the 22nd November 2005)
This was an application by the Defendant for an order that the Claimant’s costs be capped in the amount to be determined by a costs judge. The underlying claim concerned a personal injury action, brought by the Claimant of alleged sexual abuse whilst in the residential care managed by the Defendants.
The Defendants argued that this was a claim requiring a costs cap because in the parties’ respective allocation questionnaires there was a marked divergence between the estimates of costs made by the legal representatives. The Claimant’s costs to that date were estimated at £21,500 and to trial at £60,000. The Defendants put their costs to date at £3200 and £30,000 to trial. A later estimate put forward by the Claimant indicated current costs at £22,700 and a detailed estimate from the Defendants put their costs at £5137.50.
Skeleton arguments were prepared and both sides were represented by counsel.
Master Yoxall made the following points:-
Consequently a retrospective costs capping order would not be appropriate or fair to the Claimant. Furthermore it would be inappropriate to make any order of this kind in this matter against the Claimant. The application would be dismissed. The Defendants would pay the costs of the application to the Claimant in any event.
This was an application by the Defendant for an order that the Claimant’s costs be capped in the amount to be determined by a costs judge. The underlying claim concerned a personal injury action, brought by the Claimant of alleged sexual abuse whilst in the residential care managed by the Defendants.
The Defendants argued that this was a claim requiring a costs cap because in the parties’ respective allocation questionnaires there was a marked divergence between the estimates of costs made by the legal representatives. The Claimant’s costs to that date were estimated at £21,500 and to trial at £60,000. The Defendants put their costs to date at £3200 and £30,000 to trial. A later estimate put forward by the Claimant indicated current costs at £22,700 and a detailed estimate from the Defendants put their costs at £5137.50.
Skeleton arguments were prepared and both sides were represented by counsel.
Master Yoxall made the following points:-
- The Claimant is publicly funded and therefore this is a case where the Claimant’s solicitors will need to continue to justify public funding and the continuation of the case to the Legal Services Commission from time to time. Master Yoxall was well aware that the rates paid by the Legal Services Commission and the rates payable under the party and party basis differed considerably.
- This was not a case where there was a real and substantial risk that the Claimant’s costs were either disproportionate or were being unreasonably incurred.
- There was no evidence that those acting for the Claimant were acting extravagantly or unreasonably in relation to their conduct of the claim, save that the Master was being invited to infer that from the costs estimates
- Master Yoxall was satisfied that if the Defendants are unsuccessful they would be able to protect their position on a detailed assessment of the Claimant’s costs.
Consequently a retrospective costs capping order would not be appropriate or fair to the Claimant. Furthermore it would be inappropriate to make any order of this kind in this matter against the Claimant. The application would be dismissed. The Defendants would pay the costs of the application to the Claimant in any event.