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

Kurian v Falzon, Senior Court Costs Office, 9 November 2011

27 January 2012
The issues

Costs – interest on costs – Motto v Trafigura

The facts

The claimant had a road traffic accident and brought a successful claim for personal injuries. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs to be assessed by a consent order dated 14 July 2010 which settled quantum. The claimant sought interest on costs from 14 July 2010. The defendant argued that the claimant should receive interest only from the date of quantification of those costs.

The decision

In Motto v Trafigura the Senior Costs Judge had concluded that it would be a brave costs judge who decided that the decisions of the House of Lords in Hunt v Douglas and Thomas v Bunn were no longer binding. That was a conclusion with which the Master agreed. The starting point that interest ran in principle from the date of the order giving the entitlement to costs.

That being said the court now had discretion under CPR 44.3(4) to depart from the starting point. In Motto v Trafigura the Senior Costs Judge declined to award interest from the date of judgment finding that the claimant’s as receiving parties were not liable to account to their solicitors for interest on costs and declining an attempt to imply such an obligation into the condition fee agreement. Any recovery of interest on costs would be a pure windfall to the claimants therefore.

In this case the interest clearly belonged to the solicitors.

The further question arose as to whether the receipt of post-judgment pre-quantification interest by solicitors was so at odds with compensatory approach in respect of interest as to justify in the exercises of the court discretion, departure from the Incipitur rule.

In the view of the court the award of interest in such circumstances did not depart from the compensatory approach but merely reflected the commercial reality. Entitlement to a success fee did not in itself show sufficient reason to depart from the established rule. Success fees were not formulated on that basis. They primarily reflected the risk of legal representatives going unpaid as at the date the relevant agreement was signed. Compensation which ultimately passed to the legal representatives for delay did not create injustice and did not represent an additional award.

focus on...

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.

View

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

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