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

Forgotten your password?

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

2Nov

Provider collaboratives and place based partnerships Online

As executives across the health and social care sector get to grips with how to work together in even more integrated ways, join Browne Jacobson and thevaluecircle for two webinars hosted by Sir Neil MacKay, to discuss and debate your most pressing issues in a safe space.

View event

Focus on...

Legal updates

Public Matters - October 2021

Updates include the EV charging, force majeure, the National Disability Strategy and Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

View

Legal updates

Shared Insights: Managing violent, abusive and racist patients

Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Helen Badger and Carl May-Smith, Partners at Browne Jacobson provided an overview of the legal frameworks in place that can assist Trusts when managing violent, abusive and racist patients

View

Legal updates

Will councils be forced to install EV charging?

The central government’s Net Zero commitments will require the use of high carbon combustive fossil fuels to decline in order to meet its targets. A ban on new combustion engine vehicles from 2030 (and 2035 for certain hybrid models) is due to be imposed in order to reduce emissions, assisting with its Net Zero goals.

View

Provider collaboratives and place based partnerships - 12 October

As executives across the health and social care sector get to grips with how to work together in even more integrated ways, join Browne Jacobson and thevaluecircle for two webinars hosted by Sir Neil MacKay, to discuss and debate your most pressing issues in a safe space.

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