Source: http://dev.gwslaw.co.uk/2013/05/provisional-assessment-costs/comment-page-1/
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 21:06:07
Document Index: 662309538

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 47', 'art 47', 'art 8', 'art 47', 'art 47', 'art 36']

Provisional assessment costs | Legal Costs Blog
12 thoughts on “Provisional assessment costs”
Anonymous on May 15, 2013 at 8:28 am said:
The Regional Costs Judge for South Wales has confirmed that the £1,500.00 will NOT include the Court fee.
(Civil Justice Reforms meeting April 2013)
Losing Welsh Defendants can find solace in free prescriptions for migraine tablets.
Chris on May 15, 2013 at 9:08 am said:
Chris on May 15, 2013 at 9:19 am said:
For the record, my “this is wrong” comment refers to Simon’s post, not the perfectly sensible person whose post appears before mine which was not there when I first read the blog.
Interested Party on May 15, 2013 at 9:31 am said:
I’m too busy to get into this one today so will let others pick out the flaws in this argument as they did previously. To kick off:
Taken in complete isolation, without reference to any other part of the judgment, the CPR/CPD, established practice or the views of senior costs judges, the Crosbie quote might appear to support the argument that the fee for preparing the bill of costs constitutes part of the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings rather than the substantive claim, as it is incurred after the substantive claim is settled. However, it is quite apparent that this point was never actually argued or therefore determined by the Court of Appeal. If it was, then for the past 10 years every single one of the senior costs professionals, including some prominent costs barristers, that I have been up against have since 2003 have overlooked the fact that we have a binding decision that says liability for the cost of preparing the bill falls to be decided at the end of the assessment process, not within it. On very many occasions this would have tilted the balance in their favour and potentially saved their clients thousands of pounds. I doubt that this is actually the case. Curiously, not one of the DJ’s, Costs Officers or Costs Judges in the SCCO have ever picked up on this either.
Also, how does the argument sit with CPR 47.6, which states that detailed assessment proceedings are commenced by the receiving party serving a copy of the bill of costs?
Or the old CPD 46.2 which stated that a Part 47.19 offer which is not explicit in what it does or does include will be taken to include the cost of preparing the bill. How can this be when a Part 47.19 Offer cannot include any costs of assessment?
Truly Eminent Costs Professional on May 15, 2013 at 10:49 am said:
I dont want to get involved, but would like to make a ‘passing’ comment of at least 500 words…
Annon on May 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm said:
I think Interested Party has summarised the position sufficiently. I don’t know whether reference to the CPR/CPD has been deliberately omitted from the original post, but surely that bears weight. The principle has not particularly changed from the principle under the old procedure.
Court fees are a slightly different issue, as Court fees have always previously fallen within DA Costs – but this clearly can’t have been the intention of the Rules Committee (as Simon has said), particularly the lodgement fee. They probably haven’t given any thought to applications etc. either. Presumably, any summarily assessed costs will fall within the cap of the overall DA costs (excluding the court fee?)…
Simon Gibbs on May 15, 2013 at 3:05 pm said:
In response to Interested Party, I don’t believe any of the issues s/he raises solves the “problem” in relation to the costs of bill drafting (and clearly doesn’t address the court fee “problem”).
Whether a similar point has or has not been taken in the last 10 years following Crosbie is of limited relevance. Everyone used to “know” that pleural plaques was an actionable injury and £millions was paid out by defendants, with the court overseeing the process, without challenge. Then a challenge was run and it was “discovered” that pleural plaques was not actionable. This point will be determined based on its merits alone, not on whether similar arguments were “missed” in the past.
As to how the argument sits with CPR 47.6, which states that detailed assessment proceedings are commenced by the receiving party serving a copy of the bill of costs, this is exactly the point dealt with in Crosbie. In a non-litigated case Part 8 proceedings are issued before a notice of commencement is served. However, the Court of Appeal has ruled that such costs nevertheless form part of the costs of the assessment process (notwithstanding that detailed assessment proceedings have not yet been “commenced” by service of a bill).
As to the old CPD 46.2, which stated that a Part 47.19 offer which is not explicit in what it does or does include will be taken to include the cost of preparing the bill, I am not sure that takes us any further. It is quite correct that the Court of Appeal did not expressly address their minds as whether bill drafting formed part of the costs of the assessment process. Nevertheless, they set out a clear dividing line between work relating to the substantive matter and work relating to the assessment of costs. Whether, in light of unanticipated changes to the CPR, this now creates difficulties is beside the point. Any judge on provisional assessment is bound by the Court of Appeal. The fact the Court of Appeal did not feel the need to expressly address this point does not mean the judgment is distinguishable.
Truly Eminent Costs Professional on May 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm said:
Hopefully this issue will be tested to the hilt before, inevitably, common sense will prevail and it will be £1,500 exclusive of bill prep/court fees
Provisional Assessment: does the cap fit? | Costsblog
Peter Trowell on May 30, 2013 at 12:21 pm said:
I prefer the simple viewpoint.
The costs of the assessment are the costs of assessing the bill. The cost of preparing the bill is included IN the bill that is being assessed.
For the purpose of considering whether a part 47 (oops) part 36 offer has been beaten the Costs Judge must consider the amount allowed in respect of the Bill assessed.
It cannot therefore be the case that the bill preparation costs will be extracted and considered as part of the assessment costs.
My view which I adhere to unless persuaded to the contrary, is that £1500.00 is the maximum that will be allowed including the court fee.
Interesting to note that the practice direction states that the amount of the bill (to qualify for provisional assessment) must be £75,000.00. Not more, not less, just £75,000.00. Interesting that!
Timothy P on June 11, 2013 at 8:19 am said:
Peter: CPR 47.15(1) actually says “… or less.”
Anon on August 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm said:
It’s being clarified finally. It’s £1,500.00 plus VAT and court fees.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1974/made
Coming into force in October, at s22:
“In rule 47.15, for paragraph (5) substitute—