Smart Legal Costs Solutions | Legal Costs Specialists | Law Costs Draftsman |

In litigation, costs are often treated as something to be dealt with at the end of the case. The claim settles, the order is made, the file is closed, from the fee earner’s perspective, and only then does the question arise “What are we actually recovering?” By that stage, the answer may already have been affected. Costs recovery does not begin when the bill is drafted. It begins much earlier. It starts with how the file is run, how time is recorded, how disbursements are evidenced, how offers are documented, how phases are monitored, and how the overall conduct of the case can later be explained. Leaving costs too late can create problems that are difficult to fix after the event. Time entries…

view more »

There is sometimes a misconception that once a costs budget has been approved, the difficult part is over. The budget is agreed or approved, the figures are in place, and everyone can move forward with a degree of comfort about what may be recovered at the end of the claim. Unfortunately, anyone who deals with costs regularly will know that it is rarely quite that simple. An approved costs budget is important. It provides structure, gives the parties a level of certainty, and can have a significant impact on the assessment of future costs. But it does not mean that recovery is automatic. It does not turn every item of work into an untouchable figure. It does not remove the need for…

view more »

Proportionality is one of those words that appears constantly in legal costs disputes. It is relied upon in Points of Dispute, raised at assessment, and frequently used as a broad-brush argument to suggest that the receiving party’s costs have simply become “too high” when compared with the damages recovered. That argument can have force. Proportionality is a real, and an important part of costs assessment. The Court is not required to allow costs merely because they were reasonably or necessarily incurred. On the standard basis, CPR 44.3 provides that the court will only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue, and that disproportionate costs may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred. But…

view more »

There are some legal stories that take on a life of their own. They stop being legal cases and become cultural shorthand. In the United States, few examples are more famous than the so called ‘McDonald’s hot coffee case’. For years, it was repeated as the ultimate example of a claim gone mad. A woman spills coffee on herself, sues McDonald’s, and walks away with millions. It became a punchline, a political weapon, and a convenient symbol for those who wanted to argue that ‘Civil Justice’ had become excessive, irresponsible and in need of urgent restraint. The documentary ‘Hot Coffee’, released in 2011 and directed by former lawyer Susan Saladoff, set out to challenge that narrative. Rather than treating the case…

view more »

There are many ways to measure inflation. Economists rely on indices. Governments publish data. But in the UK, there is a more familiar benchmark: the Freddo. It is often used half-jokingly, but it serves a useful purpose. It highlights, in a very simple way, how the cost of everyday items has changed over time. A Simple Comparison In 2013, when provisional assessment was introduced following the Jackson reforms and formalised within CPR 47.15, a Freddo cost around 20p. Today, that same chocolate bar is typically around 35p - that represents an increase of approximately 75%. Over the same period, the recoverable costs for provisional assessment have remained fixed at £1,500 plus VAT (and court fees). No increase. No adjustment. No movement with inflation. A Question of…

view more »

Costs Budgeting is now a familiar part of the legal landscape. Having taken a prominent role in Multi-Track Litigation since April 2013, however, an important aspect of the process is still frequently overlooked by many practitioners - jeopardising costs and their recovery. Variations to approved Costs Budgets have been an ever-evolving aspect of the Costs Management process since its inception, however it remains surprising how infrequently practitioners seek to revise a Costs Budget once the initial costs Case Management Conference has taken place. CPR 3.15A tells us that: - “(1) A party (“the revising party”) must revise its budgeted costs upwards or downwards if significant developments in the litigation warrant such revisions. (2) Any budgets revised in accordance with paragraph (1) must…

view more »