BILLS OF COSTS

Inter partes and Solicitors Act assessments

SCHEDULES OF COSTS

Summary assessments (N260, N260A, N260B), Negotiations

COSTS BUDGETS

Precedent H, Precedent R, Precedent T

COSTS SEMINARS

Accredited speakers, in-house or online

ADVOCACY

Detailed assessments, Solicitor-client assessments, CCMCs

COSTS MONITORING

Auditing, cost management and budget control

SUBMISSIONS

Points of dispute, points of reply

COSTS NEGOTIATIONS

Settlement / ADR

25 November 2021

Master criticises 50k costs in 3k data claim

Master Thornett has criticised the level of costs in a 'very modest' data breach claim. In Johnson v Eastlight Community Homes Ltd [2021] EWHC 3069 (QB), the Claimant had sought over £50,000 including £15,000 of incurred costs and had suggested a two-day trial in the case where it is also making additional claims for alleged breaches under Article 8 ECHR, GDPR, the Data Protection Act as well as injunctive relief, the latter of which the master described as 'misconceived'
In his judgment, Master Thornett said the claim was factually straightforward. The Claimant is a tenant of the Defendant who requested her rent statement, which was inadvertently circulated to one-third party, who immediately notified the Defendant, and the emails were deleted. The Defendant admitted the breach, apologised, and reported the matter to the Information Commissioners Office.

19 November 2021

SRA proposes changes in power to fine

The SRA has opened a consultation that could lead to a shake-up of its powers to fine law firms for lower-level offences. The body oversees some 10,000 law firms and under the proposals, the income of the firms would be considered with fines up to a maximum of up to 5% of annual turnover being proposed for larger firms.

Other proposals include introducing a schedule of penalties from £800 up to £1,500 for offences such as failing to respond to the Anti Money Laundering risk assessment declaration. The aim is to speed up and streamline the process, which can often become administratively cumbersome.

30 September 2021

Signatory to a bill of costs must be capable of being identified

The person certifying a bill of costs must be identified, the High Court has ruled. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC appealed a decision of Master Nagalingham who had refused to strike out a bill of costs for non compliance where the signature on the certificate was illegible and the signatory was not identified.

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE ruled that as a matter of ordinary interpretation '...bearing in mind the purpose of certification, it is implicit that the solicitor who signs the certificates must be readily identifiable on the face of those certificates...'.