Source: http://www.clerksroom.com/profile?type=barristers&fl=E&pid=1614
Timestamp: 2017-11-17 21:17:53
Document Index: 85985981

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 7', 'art 8', 'art 18', 'art 18', 'EWCA ', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 36']

Clerksroom :: Barrister Profiles :: Robin Dunne (2002)
Robin Dunne (2002)
Membership Status: Barrister - Full Member Qualified in 2002 Public Access Accredited
Fees and Feedback
Robin is a specialist costs and litigation funding counsel. He has focused on this complex area of law since qualification and has over 15 years' experience of dealing with all types of costs claims.
He also acts in professional negligence claims involving solicitors, particularly where the dispute involves issues relating to costs.
He has written and published an 86 page Essential Guide to Civil Costs & Litigation Funding which can be downloaded at: www.clerksroom.com/content-downloads.php?cid=506
Robin was called to the bar in 2002. Prior to independent practice he was an employed barrister and partner in a City of London firm of solicitors. He is direct access qualified which enables members of the public to instruct him directly and is also one of a small number of barristers who are permitted to conduct litigation.
He is based at 218 Strand, London (opposite the Royal Courts of Justice) and is happy to see clients in chambers or at their solicitor's offices.
He is instructed by both paying and receiving parties in all issues relating to costs and is particularly sought after in cases which are unusual or involve novel points of law. He has a friendly manner combined with a commercially astute approach.
Robin’s practice covers both inter-partes and solicitor/client disputes. The majority of his work in detailed assessments relates to six or seven figure bills of costs or cases involving points of principle.
His costs practice covers
• Detailed Assessment hearings
• Appeals (both first and second appeals)
• Costs Budgeting
• Costs of very high value Cat PI claims
• Costs in clinical negligence claims
• Fixed costs disputes (MOJ and PCR)
• Points of law
• Test cases
• Solicitor /client disputes
• Success fees and ATE disputes
• Interlocutory hearings regarding costs issues (default costs certificates, interim payments etc)
• Relief from sanctions Applications
• Costs involving Legal Expense Insurers
• Disputes involving fraud
Although based in London within easy access to the SCCO and High Court he will travel nationwide. In addition to his busy advocacy practice, Robin also has a significant paper practice including:
• Advices on points of law, likely award of costs and costs issues generally
• Written submissions on costs following judgment
• Pleadings including Part 7 and Part 8, applications, Part 18 questions, notice and grounds of appeal, skeleton arguments etc
• Unusually for counsel, Robin has vast experience of drafting points of dispute and replies
Professional Negligence involving solicitors
Having been a partner in a firm of solicitors for a number of years Robin has first-hand knowledge of the working practices and obligations of solicitors.
He acts and advises in professional negligence claims involving solicitors and has particular expertise in claims which involve costs issues or disputes or where there is a combination of allegations of negligence and disputed fees.
His recent experience includes acting in a six figure claim involving complex issues of negligence and a concurrent Solicitors Act litigation.
Robin qualified as a mediator with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is available to mediate in all civil disputes. He is also able to act in expert determination matters relating to costs.
Selected recent cases
Richard Slade & Company Solicitors v Boodia & Anor [2017] EWHC 2699 (QB): Mrs. Justice Slade. Appeal from a costs judge on the question of whether partial bills (containing only profit costs) could stand as interim statute bills. Also consideration of whether such bills could form a 'Chamberlain' bill.
Conibear v Humphries Kirk Solicitors (2017) Lawtel: Master Rowley SCCO. Whether an invoice rendered to a client by a solicitor was a final statute bill.
Mitchell v Gilling-Smith [2017] EWHC B18 (Costs). Whether an ATE in a post LASPO Clinical negligence claim was reasonable and proportionate.
Vivienne Jago v Whitbread Group PLC (2016) Lawtel: Master Whalan SCCO. Acting for the paying party in an application to disallow costs under CPR r.44.11. 50% of the claimant's assessed costs disallowed due to her solicitor's improper and unreasonable conduct in the detailed assessment proceedings.
Rahimian & Anor v Allan Janes LLP [2016] EWHC B18 (Costs): Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker. Solicitor and client assessment. Consideration of 'Chamberlain' bills and when the client must be in a position to consider whether to have the bills assessed.
Vlamaki v Sookias & Sookias [2015] EWHC 3334 (QB): Mr. Justice Walker. Appeal following a solicitor and client assessment. Whether a retainer allowed the solicitors to render interim statute bills.
French v Carter Lemon Camerons [2015] 1 Costs LO 107: Mrs. Justice Swift. Relief from sanctions following a failure to serve a statement of means in a High Court costs appeal.
AMH v Scout Association: (2015) SCCO, Master Leonard. Question of whether in a clinical negligence case the client’s decision to switch from legal aid to CFA reasonable. Judgment available here: http://tinyurl.com/zjmdnwe
Mitchell & Co v Meridian Private Plaza (2015) Companies Court. Mr. Registrar Briggs. Acting for the client who was successful in striking out the solicitor's winding up petition where there were outstanding disputes over the bills of costs rendered. Also acted in the appeal of that decision before Mr. Justice Snowden (dismissed by consent following hearing.)
French v Carter Lemon Camerons [2014] EWHC 3442 (QB) Mrs. Justice Swift. Whether permission should be granted to use disclosure in a linked professional negligence claim in an appeal against detailed assessment. Also consideration of the use of Part 18 requests in an appeal.
R v Binning, (2014) Oxford Crown Court, HHJ Eccles QC (advice and skeleton argument by Robin Dunne, oral advocacy by Mr. Compton QC.) The Crown Court considered the circumstances in which a defendant could recover the costs of defending himself from the CPS. Judgment available here: http://tinyurl.com/jn8b925
While in-house Robin was involved in a number of important cases including:
Solomon v Cromwell, Oliver v Doughty [2011] EWCA Civ 1584: The question of whether a standard basis costs order made when accepting a Part 36 offer dis-applied fixed RTA costs.
Beal v Russell (2011) Lawtel, SCCO, Senior Costs Judge Hurst: The appropriate success fee where there was Part 36 protection within the CFA and liability had been admitted prior to the CFA being signed.
Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd, Jones v Attrill [2008] EWCA Civ 1375: Law Society’s Accident Line test case. (Decision below in Jones v Attrill available on Lawtel)
C v W [2008] EWCA Civ 1459: The proper success fee to be allowed where the only risk was losing to a Part 36 offer.
Robin is available to provide in-house CPD training sessions in all areas of costs law including costs budgeting and the post LASPO costs environment.
Robin (Dunne) is one of the few genuine costs specialists at the bar - an assured and practical approach combined with excellent "customer service" and an in depth knowledge, particularly on Solicitors Act matters.
Mark Carlisle, Consultant Law Costs Draftsman Berlad Graham
"Robin (Dunne)is a very skilled advocate and his knowledge of costs law and procedure is very impressive. I would have no hesitation in recommending him for any claim where costs issues are involved."
Kos Costa, Costs Lawyer, Managing Director Focus Costs
"Having worked with Robin (Dunne) for ten years I can recommend him as specialist costs counsel. He has acted on many of our very high value and complex claims, as well as appearing in test cases. His knowledge of the law is excellent and he has a pragmatic, commercial approach."
Simon Murray, CEO NeoLaw Solicitors
) (LAwte
Details regarding our approach to fees can be found at the following link: http://www.clerksroom.com/content-html?cid=336
Please see “profile” tab for description of the legal services provided by this barrister.
We aim to complete and return all paperwork within 14 days (2 weeks) of receipt if no specific deadline is provided. We can work to much faster timescales if requested or we can agree a specific target date for each individual circumstance. We will always advise at the outset if counsel is unable to meet any deadline.
Each barrister has a standard hourly rate for their work. The individual hourly rate can be agreed when instructions are acknowledged if preferred. We welcome early discussion as to the suitability of a specific barrister for a specific case. The right barrister will have the relevant expertise to deal with the case but will not be too junior, or too senior depending on the complexities.
We aim to allocate all cases to the correct level of experience & seniority which we believe will prove most to be the most cost effective solution for our clients.
If, due to urgency, we allocate paperwork to a more senior member of Clerksroom, we will charge the appropriate hourly rate for the work, not for the barrister. We welcome early discussion to ensure the correct fee is applied to the case at the outset.
All our barristers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and hold a current practising certificate, details can be found at the following link Barristers’ Register
If you are not satisfied with the service provided, you can make a complaint to Chambers. Information on the chambers’ complaints procedure is available at the following link: http://www.clerksroom.com/content-html?cid=416
If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from my chambers, you can make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. You must contact the Legal Ombudsman either within 6 months following the conclusion of our handling your complaint, within 6 years from the date of the act/omission, or 3 years from the date that you should reasonably have known there were grounds for complaint (if the act/omission took place before the 6 October 2010 or was more than six years ago).
The Legal Ombudsman’s details are as follows:
Web: www.legalombudsman.org.uk
The Bar Standards Board regulates barristers and specialised legal services businesses in England and Wales, and would like to ask you about the information you found on your legal services provider’s website. Your response will help to inform future changes in this area.
This survey should take 5-10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential, not shared with your legal services provider and only used for research purposes.
If you complete this survey and provide the Bar Standards Board with your e-mail address, you will be entered into a prize draw to win a £100 Amazon voucher.
Ref: 12677