Key Facts
- •Wasted costs application by a claimant against their former solicitors.
- •Underlying action was a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident.
- •Claimant's former solicitors, Hegarty LLP, repeatedly failed to comply with court orders.
- •Claimant's claim was struck out due to the solicitors' failures.
- •Defendant settled its wasted costs application against Hegarty LLP.
- •Claimant sought a wasted costs order against Hegarty LLP to protect themselves from paying the Defendant's costs.
Legal Principles
Wasted costs jurisdiction stems from s. 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 46.8, PD46.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.51(6); CPR 46.8; PD46 paragraph 5
A party can seek a wasted costs order against their own solicitors.
Brown v Bennett [2002] 1 WLR 713
Wasted costs orders require a causal link between the legal representative's conduct and the wasted costs. Procedure must be fair and summary. The court has discretion to make or not make an order even if the other elements are met.
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205
Wasted costs jurisdiction is summary and should not involve extensive factual investigations, particularly concerning the solicitor-client relationship. Allegations requiring detailed inquiries are better suited for a professional negligence claim.
Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678; B v Pendelbury (unreported, 28 June 2002); Manzanilla v Certon Property and Investments
Outcomes
Claimant's application for a wasted costs order against Hegarty LLP dismissed.
The court found that while Hegarty LLP's conduct was reprehensible and negligent, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that this conduct caused them to incur unnecessary costs. The wasted costs regime is compensatory, and the Claimant's liability stemmed from the struck-out claim, not from incurring unnecessary costs themselves. The court also deemed the issues unsuitable for summary disposal under the wasted costs jurisdiction; a professional negligence claim is the more appropriate avenue.