0370 270 6000

Hill v Bailey, Chancery Division, 25 November 2003

10 December 2003
The issues

Costs – Legal Aid – Set Off – Community Legal Services Regulations

The facts

The Defendant was sued by the Claimant who was an assisted person. The Claimant had commenced an action against the Defendant who was his Partner in a firm of Solicitors. Both sides were partially successful with regard to costs. The Taxing Master certified that the parties’ costs should be set off against each other and that the balance due should be certified. Both sides appealed unsuccessfully against the Order. The Claimant proceeded to have his costs taxed both as between the parties and as between himself and the Legal Aid Board. The Defendant did not lodge his Bill for Taxation because he took the view that the costs payable to him were likely to substantially exceed the sums he owed the Claimant and the Claimant did not have the funds to pay any balance due to the Defendant so it was a waste of resources. Instead he wrote a letter to the Legal Aid Board at the London area office inviting them to take no further proceedings against him on the grounds that it would be unjust. Four years later he received a Statutory Demand requiring payment of the amount due. The Defendant applied to the Croydon County Court to set aside the Statutory Demand. His Application was dismissed and subsequently the Judge dismissed the Defendant’s Appeal.

Meanwhile the Defendant applied for a Detailed Assessment of his costs. The Master had taken the view that Section 11 of The Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Community Legal Services (Legal Service) Costs Regulations 2000 applied and that the Defendant could not proceed under the ordinary Detailed Assessment Rules.

The decision

1. The position under the CPR remains the same as it was before 1999, namely that whilst an assisted person remains protected against the making of enforceable orders for payment of costs, that protection is not available in respect of orders for costs to be used as a shield or set off and that therefore the principals in Lockley -v- National Blood Transfusion Service, remain good law.

2. In this situation, the Defendant only sought an Assessment to take advantage of the right of set off and had indeed offered the Court an undertaking not otherwise to seek or enforce any right to the sum assessed. In these circumstances, Section 11 of the 1999 Act, and its attendant 6-year limitation period, did not apply to Detailed Assessment sought by the Defendant against the Claimant even though the Claimant was an assisted person.

Appeal allowed.

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