2007

The Appellant acted for the Respondent in family proceedings and at the outset, the Respondent informed the Appellant that she would have to borrow money from her parents to meet the costs. She also informed them that a company jointly owned by herself and her husband had dividends of £100,000 per year, although she had no idea of the company’s finances and that her £4,000 salary had not been paid.

The Claimants were represented by two firms of solicitors. When they were granted public funding, instructions were transferred to the second solicitors. Both solicitors agreed to submit separate Bills of Costs, but they failed to inform the Defendant’s solicitors of this. A Bill was served by the second solicitors which did not include the costs of the first solicitors. After an agreement had been reached by negotiation for the second solicitors’ costs, the first solicitors served a Bill of Costs amounting to £53,127.48.

The Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident on 08/05/01 and instructed KSB Claims. The matter was conducted under a retainer dated 30/05/01 and the Claimant had the benefit of BTE Insurance with Motor Law while he was represented by KSB Claims. The matter was transferred to Irwin Mitchell in July 2004 as KSB Claims stopped dealing with personal injury work. However, Irwin Mitchell failed to inform the Claimant that because they were not on the KSB Claims panel, the BTE insurance was not available to him anymore.

The Claimant suffered multiple injuries on 19/07/00 when the glider he was piloting, immediately after a winch launch, nose-dived to the ground. Following an investigation by the British Gliding Association into the cause of the accident, it was concluded that the automatic rear elevated control coupling had failed because it was incorrectly adjusted and worn.

This was a matter where the Claimant was injured on 10/09/04 in a road traffic accident and the claim was conducted under a CFA. Liability was admitted early and proceedings were issued on 10/06/05. On 16/08/05 a Part 36 payment in the sum of £1,800 was made. However, the payment was rejected and the matter proceeded to a disposal hearing on 13/09/05 when damages were awarded to the Claimant in the sum of £1,774.32 and costs were awarded up to 07/09/05. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs from 08/09/05.

The Claimant appealed against a decision to disallow all the costs claimed in a Bill due to the CFA failing to comply with Regulation 3(1)(b) of the CFA Regulations 2000 and therefore being unenforceable.

This case was a solicitor own client matter relating to billing levels, brought by the client against Withers. In June 2007, it was the decision of the SCCO that Withers were bound by an original costs estimate to Trial, prepared in May 2005, on the basis of a 4 day Trial, although the Trial actually lasted for 18 days. The decision was therefore appealed. Mr Justice Morgan said that the Solicitor’s costs estimate was a useful yardstick by which the reasonableness of the costs could be measured.

The Court of Appeal held that the CFA in this matter was indeed a CFA Lite and so Regulation 3A of the CFA Regulations as amended would apply. It was found that the correct way to construe a CFA was to look at the whole package provided by the Solicitor, including the Rule 15 letter, the CFA agreement and the insurance policy document.

The Court of Appeal held that not only could external costs draftsmen’s fees be claimed as a proper profit costs item rather than a disbursement, a success fee could be claimed on these fees also (where the solicitor had entered into a CCFA/CFA).

Lady Justice Hallett stated that the work carried out by the costs draftsmen was the type of work solicitors were retained to do and so the work carried out was undoubtedly solicitors’ work. Therefore, even though the solicitor had delegated the work, they had never relinquished responsibility for it or control of it.