Key Facts
- •Detailed assessment of costs payable by the first respondent to the petitioner under a June 7, 2016, Companies Court order.
- •Section 994 proceedings (Unfair Prejudice) under the Companies Act 2006.
- •Petitioner acted as a litigant in person.
- •Petitioner's bill of costs included fees from Berkeley Domecq, a business consultancy, not solicitors.
- •Berkeley Domecq's fees were a significant portion (£55,104.90) of the bill.
- •The contract between the petitioner and Berkeley Domecq stipulated that their charges might not be recoverable.
Legal Principles
A litigant in person can claim costs for work and disbursements that would have been allowed if done by a legal representative; payments for legal services; and costs of expert assistance (CPR 46.5).
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) rule 46.5
Recoverability of a consultant's costs for a litigant in person depends on whether those costs would have been recoverable as a disbursement if made by a solicitor; costs are recoverable if the work isn't normally done by solicitors but may include specialist assistance.
Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (No. 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507; summarised in Octoesse LLP v Trak Special Projects Ltd [2016] 6 Costs L.R. 1187
Costs are not recoverable as a disbursement if the work would normally have been done by a solicitor.
Agassi v Robinson (No. 2)
There is scope for recovering costs of consultancy work that is expert or specialist work not normally done by a solicitor.
Agassi v Robinson (No. 2)
Outcomes
Berkeley Domecq's fees are not recoverable.
The court found no basis to conclude that Berkeley Domecq provided expertise outside the typical scope of solicitors handling section 994 petitions. Their work, while helpful, was not specialist or expert in the sense that would allow for cost recovery.
No additional costs awarded to the petitioner for dealing with the recoverability of Berkeley Domecq's fees.
The court considered that the incorrect presentation of Berkeley Domecq's fees in the bill rendered the additional costs unrecoverable. The petitioner's unsuccessful argument against recovery of Berkeley Domecq's fees meant no further costs would be awarded.