0370 270 6000

Orwin v The British Coal Corporation, Supreme Court Costs Office

7 May 2003
The issues

Costs – Counsel’s fees.

The facts

This action was an action for infringement of copyright brought by Mr Orwin against The British Coal Corporation. Application was made to strike out. The Application was dismissed and the Defendants were ordered to pay 75% of the costs. The Claimant was legally aided. At the Detailed Legal Aid Assessment, Counsel’s fees were reduced substantially. One item was the subject of Appeal from the Costs Judge to the Judge, namely the brief fee of £15,500.00 for the Application to strike out. This was reduced to £5,000.00. The Application was listed for 1 day, preparation time of 9Ω days was claimed, together with a further 12.75 hours in respect of a draft Chronology and Skeleton Argument. Both the latter items were disallowed entirely. Appeal was made on behalf of Claimant’s Counsel.

The decision

1. The basis on which the costs of the legally assisted person were to be assessed was the standard basis. The costs had to be proportionate in relation to the matters in issue and reasonable in amount.

2. The Brief fee for Defendant’s Counsel had been £6,500.00. Whilst it was correct (Simpons Motor Sales -v- Hendon Corporation 1964) that it was not a sound principle to treat the fee paid by the other party as the appropriate yardstick, it was nonetheless a factor of weight, although not conclusive. Since 1964 and in particular under the CPR where Summary Assessment had proved a very useful tool in doing justice and preventing unnecessary applications, it must be the case that looking at the fees incurred by the imposing party has become a more important factor.

3. 12 days preparation was disproportionate. The fact that it is possible for experienced professionals to spend disproportionate amounts of time on matters was underlined by the fact that in this Appeal the Appellant’s Counsel had spent 45 hours and the Solicitors 36 hours, notwithstanding that the amount in issue was £10,500.00.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up