The Court of Appeal found that - despite appearances to the contrary - Master McCloud had decided that ‘in principle’ the costs of a fee earner’s attendance at rehabilitation case meetings are, in principle, an irrecoverable cost in litigation; but also, that the Master’s decision was wrong. The costs were recoverable to the extent that they met the criteria of utility, relevance and attributability.
Background
Ms Johnson was formerly married to Ziad Takieddine. Divorce proceedings commenced in 2006, with an order for divorce and a capitalised maintenance order made by a French court some years later. In 2016 an order was made by Moylan J for the sale of a London property (Warwick House) - one of the former matrimonial homes of Ms Johnson’s marriage to Mr Takieddine. The order provided inter alia that the proceeds of sale should be applied first to discharge a mortgage in favour of Barclays and then, after solicitors’ and estate agents’ costs, for payment of 50% of the balance to Ms Johnson.
Background
In the course of a detailed assessment the claimant (paying party) alleged misconduct on the part of the defendant and sought an order that, as a result, the claim for costs (which, as served, stood at in excess of £.5M) should be assessed at nil. The allegation related to the inclusion of a claim for slightly in excess of £100,000 in the bill of costs, for assistance rendered by the defendant’s adviser (Mr Hora) – an Indian qualified lawyer and advocate and long-standing legal advisor to the defendant and his family. Mr Hora had represented the defendant - an Indian national and UK resident - in the underlying dispute initially and until such time as it became necessary to instruct solicitors within the jurisdiction.
Refusing an application to set aside a default costs certificate relating to costs awarded by the Employment Tribunal, the SCCO (Costs Judge Leonard on this occasion) has once again made crystal clear the need to serve supporting evidence in the form of draft points of dispute.
In the face of competition from the new Unified Patent Court, the Intellectual Property List is spreading its sails to catch the breath of a hitherto bridled middle-tier of IP litigants.
The successful defendants’ costs budgeting calculations had failed to anticipate a form of order hearing (FOOH) - preparation for which, as is common practice in IP and patent cases, involved (expensive) analysis and division of incurred costs between various issues - and nor did they apply vary their costs budget to include such costs. Instead, at the FOOH the defendants sought the relevant amount as falling outside of budgeted costs (serving a N260 costs statement for in excess of £58,000).
A fabulous evening at the European Diversity Awards 2023. Congratulations to all of the winners,...
Denovo legal services were in attendance at the The British Diversity Awards which took place on...
We are proud to announce that we will be sponsoring the British Diversity Awards 2022. The awards...
We are proud to announce that we will be sponsoring the European Diversity Awards 2021. The awards...
The Denovo Legal Service Marketing Campaign of the Year Award was presented to the winners...
Denovo Legal Services is pleased to be sponsoring the outstanding LGBTQI Network of the Year Award at...
A memorable evening at the Bank of London Rainbow Honours awards last week. Although the focus of...
Denovo attended a fundraiser for Kate Osborne MP on 19 March. Bell Ribiero-Addi (Streatham) Fran...
Education/admissions
Afqar is involved in the firm's diversity initiatives and a keen advocate for social mobility and opportunities for all.
Afqar was amongst the first in our profession become a regulated Costs Lawyer. He enjoys rights of audience in relation all costs proceedings.
Afqar is also an accredited training provider.
Experience and notable cases
Kuwait Airways Corporation (KAC) –v- Iraqi Airways Company (IAC) – Following the longest running commercial case in the history of the English courts I prepared KAC’s massive costs claim, one the largest ever to reach the doors of the Senior Courts Costs Office. Legal costs claim of >£40M.
Pharma patent litigation – I was instructed by a leading global law firm on behalf of the successful parties in patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. Legal costs claim of >£5M.
Telecoms patent litigation – I was instructed by a top tier specialist firm of patent litigators to prepare various complex costs statements following trials and appeals involving some of the world’s largest technology corporations. Legal costs claim of >£10M.
High-profile costs claim following failed £100M civil recovery proceedings – instructed by a market leading international litigation team acting for a foreign citizen whose worldwide assets were subject of a civil recovery claim brought by the National Crime Agency (NCA). My team and I prepared a number of high value interrelated claims for costs on behalf of the successful party . Legal costs claim of >£5M.
Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone – The case generated several decisions of wider importance in the legal costs field (relating to security for costs, indemnity costs, and the availability of a non-party costs order against professional funders – a point on which the Association of Litigation Funders also intervened). I prepared the successful party's costs breakdowns and provided witness statements in support of its security for costs applications. Following the conclusion of the substantive litigation I prepared the defendant’s £20M> costs breakdown.
Challenge to remuneration and expenses of joint administrators – instructed by a market leading international litigation team: I was instructed to prepare a detailed challenge to the charges of a global financial consultancy and their advisers (including two high-profile international law firms), in connection with the administration of a UK energy supplier. The application for assessment of fees and expenses of >£5M under the Insolvency Act 1986 was the first significant challenge of its kind in 20 years.
Education
LLB (Hons) – University of London (1994)
LLM (Distinction) – University of East Anglia (2018)
PhD (law) - University of East Anglia (2024)
Professional and research interests: Costs law and practice, litigation funding, responsibility theory, vicarious liability, products liability, litigation practice, philosophical foundations of tort law. My doctoral thesis examined relationships between (pre-moral, pre-legal) outcome responsibility and strict tortious obligations of repair. Time permitting, future research output will address aspects of costs law and practice, third party litigation funding, as well as approaches to responsibility for harm caused by intelligent products (for ‘algorithmic accidents’).
