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

cost capping hammer blow

11 July 2007

Synopsis

On 12 March 2007, his Honour Judge McDuff made a cost capping order limiting Irwin Mitchells costs to just 30 of their £726,000 estimate. In a judgement that pulled no punches, sympathy was expressed for the defendants view that the case "was less about gaining compensation for the claimants and more about making profits for Irwin Mitchell".

Background

The claimants are represented by Irwin Mitchell, acting under a Group Litigation Order and the defendant is First Choice Holidays and Flight Limited. The allegations relate to the provision of holidays in 2001 and 2002 at the Soviva Hotel in Tunisia. It is claimed that as a result of inadequate hygiene at the hotel the claimants became ill. Liability is denied.

At the Allocation Questionnaire stage, Irwin Mitchell produced an estimate showing costs to date of £650,000, with an estimated total expenditure of £940,000. Both figures were exclusive of the success fee uplift and were described by the defendant as "breathtaking". His Honour Judge McDuff agreed with that sentiment.

In order to support a cost capping application the defendant sought a full breakdown of these estimates. That was not forthcoming, but further estimates (in fact also wrong!) revised the costs spent as £1.2 million, with a further £900,000 anticipated. Unsurprisingly the defendant proceeded with their application.

Judgement

His Honour Judge McDuff refused to retrospectively limit the claimants costs. He did however say that the defendants suggested cap of £166,000 for past costs represented a figure with which he would have agreed had he been so empowered.

As to the application for a prospective cap, the judgement was scathing as to the claimants inability to provide an accurate breakdown and the discrepancies in their evidence as to why this had not been possible. Short shrift was given to the suggestion that the claims are worth £1.15 million and, so limited are the anticipated damages in the individual cases, it was suggested to be unlikely that they would have been pursued in the absence of a Conditional Fee Agreement.

His Honour Judge McDuff commented that increasing legal costs are a real impediment to the affordability of civil justice, meaning many can no longer afford to litigate. Little wonder that Irwin Mitchell received little judicial sympathy for their suggestion that a costs cap would result itself in limited access to justice.

The claimant has permission to appeal.

Conclusion

  • As his Honour Judge McDuff said "I do not see why, in the appropriate case, costs capping should not be a regular and normal order". In our view this is now something to be considered in every case
  • The orders are prospective, so applications should be made a soon as possible, and that will usually be after Allocation Questionnaires are filed. If the case is moving slowly, why not ask for a pre-action estimate of costs. After all, what reasonable litigant would deny a defendant this information?
  • Caps will undoubtedly focus attention on the key issues and limit any tendency to plead and pursue claims too widely based. In this case the judge observed that the cap would at least "…act as a check against the constant thirst for opening the file and recording a unit or two"
  • Defendants solicitors must be prepared to file detailed proposals as to how caps should be calculated, with robust evidence to support those proposals
  • Finally, we have just heard that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has costs capping is on the agenda for the next meeting on Friday 20 July 2007

A more detailed article by the author on this subject is due to be published by the Law Society Gazette shortly.

training and events

19Apr

NHS White Paper webinar Online

We invite you to our webinar series where we look at the NHS white paper which sets out the legislative proposals for the new health bill, which has been created to support the statutory delivery of Integrated Care Systems.

View event

21Apr

Care Business Briefing - Future of Care Special Online

We are pleased to invite you to our Future of Care webinar where we will be discussing social care in an ICS world, the future of mental health and learning disability and retirement living.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Care Quality Commission (CQC) revisions to its Transitional Monitoring Approach - what should providers be thinking about?

With the Care Quality Commission now considering consultation responses in respect of its long-term regulatory approach, life goes on under their Transitional Monitoring Approach.

View

Legal updates

The White Paper overview [Part 4] - Integration and innovation: working together to improve health and social care for all - additional proposals

We set out and consider each legal proposal in the section on working together and supporting integration and innovation. The Government has put forward an additional series of targeted proposals to improve social care, public health, and quality and safety.

View

Legal updates

Faiz and others v Burnley Borough Council [2021] EWCA Civ 55

The demand and acceptance of rent with knowledge of a breach of covenant will waive the right to forfeit if the rent accrued due after the breach but before the landlord had knowledge of the breach.

View

Legal updates

‘Everyone’s Invited’ - managing reports of child-on-child assault and harassment

The ‘Everyone’s Invited’ movement has over 9,000 testimonies on its website and, whilst it has recently taken the step to anonymise everything on the platform, a number of schools have been named.

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