The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is currently consulting on the draft protocols which will implement changes to the fixed recoverable costs scheme. The Ministry of Justice have invited comments from stakeholders on the proposed levels of fixed recoverable costs that will apply.
This case involved an appeal from three decisions of Master Haworth made in the course of a detailed assessment of the costs Zumtobel Lighting Ltd (the Defendant) were to pay Light on Line Ltd and Project Management Lighting Ltd (the Claimants) following settlement of proceedings brought by the Claimants against the Defendant.The following decisions were appealed
i) The decision on 15th December 2011 that a redacted After The Event (‘ATE’) insurance certificate provided by the Claimants did not comply with Costs Practice Direction (‘CPD’) 32.5(2)(c); ii) The decision on 16th December 2011 to refuse relief under CPR 3.9 from the sanction of disallowing the claim for the insurance premium applied pursuant to CPR 44.3B(1)(e) in respect of the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPD 32.5(2)(c); iii) The decision on 15th December 2011 to reduce the Claimants’ solicitors’ success fee to 40% and the Claimants’ counsel’s success fee to 20%.
Lawyers acting under a DBA will be required to comply with the indemnity principle, which means that their fee would be restricted to what is due under the DBA fee: if the DBA fee is less than the recoverable base legal costs would be in the absence of a DBA, a losing defendant would be liable to pay the DBA fee.
This was a decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to an award of costs under Rule 40(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2004. The first instance decision denied an application for an award of costs against the unsuccessful applicant on grounds of unreasonable conduct. The Employment Judge did not find the conduct unreasonable.