Cost and Litigation Funding

Cost of Professional Receivers

Re: Smith & Ors [2007] EWHC 90088 (Costs)

Master Haworth. This decision affects the recoverable costs of professional receivers in Court of Protection cases. Hitherto following an earlier decision of the SCCO professional receiver's remuneration in respect of general management charges and general receivership matters was based on 90% of guideline rates. This decision abandons that approach and confirms that in general, professional receivers can recover their general management costs at the usual SCCO guideline rate of charge subject to the costs officer being satisfied as to the appropriate grade of fee earner.

Proportionality

Finester v Arriva London & Anor [2007] EWHC 90070 (Costs)

Deputy Master Williams. The claim was pleaded at Ł1.4 million. The claimant
recovered Ł10,000. The defendant contended on assessment that it should not be

obliged to meet the additional costs of advancing an exaggerated claim. On assessment two days of the trial costs were disallowed to reflect the fact that an exaggerated claim had turned a one day case into a three day case. The costs of so doing were disproportionate and consequently the necessity test was applied.

Solicitors Act Assessment

Alan v Colman Coyle LLP [2007] EWHC 90075 (Costs)

Master Simons. This case concerned the "one fifth rule". The Master found that failure to engage in mediation or an attempt to settle can amount to "special circumstances" within Section 70(10) Solicitors Act 1974. Although the bill was reduced by less than one fifth the solicitors were awarded only two thirds of their costs to reflect their refusal to negotiate.

Costs Draftsmen's Success Fees

Crane v Cannon CA (decision awaited). This long awaited appeal in respect of whether costs draftsmen are able to claim a success fee is awaited. The appeal was heard in early November 2007.

2008

Gloucester City Council v Evans. An appeal to the Court of Appeal from Deputy Master Lightman concerning discount of fee arrangements and whether they breach the rule as to 100% success fees.

Kilby v Gowith, an appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the circumstances as to when it is appropriate to enter into a CFA claiming a success fee, as opposed to recovering costs under a BTE policy in low value RTA claims. Due for hearing May 2008.