0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Guy v Castle Morpeth Borough Council, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne County Court on appeal from the Morpeth County Court, 9 January 2006

21 July 2006
The issues

Costs – CFA – whether law costs draftsman entitled to uplift under CFA of whether his fees were a disbursement

The facts

The Claimant had a tripping accident in October 2002 and sued for damages. Liability was admitted and damages subsequently agreed together with an Order for costs. The Claimant’s solicitors instructed a law costs draftsman to prepare a Bill of Costs. The matter went to assessment before the District Judge. Among the items claimed from the Defendant were the costs draftsman’s charge for preparing the bill, in the sum of £183.30 and the costs of the draftsman’s appearance before the District Judge which amounted to £951.40. The costs were incurred under a contract between the solicitor and the costs draftsman. The Defendant did not dispute liability for the costs. The dispute was whether those costs were fees for the purposes of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 or whether they were part of the solicitors’ basic charges or profit costs under the CFA in which event they would attract an uplift in respect of the success fee.

The decision

The appeal would turn on the terms of the CFA and its proper construction. The CFA drew a clear distinction between basic costs and disbursements. Disbursements were defined as comprising “payments we make on your behalf such as Court fees, experts fees, etc”.

The phrase “solicitor agent” is not ambiguous and clearly does not cover non-solicitors. If there were any ambiguity the ambiguity should be construed in the manner most favourable to the client which in this instance would mean a stricter interpretation contended for by the paying party.
The District Judge did not earr in his finding that the work undertaken by the firm of costs draftsman fell outside that for which a success fee was payable under the CFA.

Appeal dismissed.

Comments

My thanks to John Allen, costs draftsman jdalawcosting@btconnect.com for drawing this case to my attention.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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