Key Facts
- •Detailed assessment of Mr Baltaj Johal's (RP) Bill of Costs (£258,583.78) against the Personal Representative of Miss Madhu Kapoor (deceased) (PP).
- •Bill of Costs contained numerous discrepancies compared to interim invoices and Statements of Costs.
- •Significant issues with proportionality, inclusion of costs not covered by the N252, failure to redraw the Bill after successful appeal.
- •Allegations of serious misconduct by RP and his representatives (Solicitor and Costs Draftsman), including fabrication of time records and improper VAT claims.
- •Multiple prior court proceedings between the parties involving neighbour disputes, injunctions, and damages claims.
- •Interim invoices did not include VAT on solicitor's fees, yet VAT was claimed on those same fees in the Bill of Costs.
- •Numerous non-contemporaneous attendance notes were added to the files, inflating the claimed hours.
Legal Principles
Indemnity costs awarded when conduct is unreasonable and improper, or 'out of the norm'.
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879
Proportionality test for costs assessment (pre- and post-April 1, 2013).
East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service v Timothy Austin [2019] EWHC 1455 (QB)
CPR Part 44.11: Court's powers in relation to misconduct (non-compliance, unreasonable or improper conduct).
CPR Part 44.11
Wasted costs jurisdiction is not compensatory, unlike CPR Part 44.11 which is intended as a sanction.
Gempride Limited -v- Bamrah and others [2018] EWCA 1367
Indemnity principle: RP cannot recover from PP more than they are liable to pay their own legal representatives.
Harold v Smith [1865] H&N 381 and Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1KB 645 CA
Solicitor's signature on a Bill of Costs normally sufficient to satisfy indemnity principle, but serious disciplinary matter if Bill claims more than RP is liable to pay.
Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570 CA
Interim statute invoices and their treatment in detailed assessment.
The General of Berne Insurance Company -v- Jardine Reinsurance Management Ltd [1998] Lloyd's Rep Ir 211
Outcomes
RP's Bill of Costs assessed at nil.
Serious misconduct by RP and his representatives; numerous discrepancies in the Bill; improper and unreasonable conduct in claiming substantially more than invoiced to RP; breach of indemnity principle; fabrication of time records; improper VAT claims.
PP awarded indemnity costs of detailed assessment (£10,314.00).
Unreasonable and improper conduct by RP and/or his representatives.
Ms Multani (Solicitor) to be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Serious misconduct in relation to the Bill of Costs.
Mr Kumar's (Costs Draftsman) conduct warrants investigation.
Serious misconduct in relation to the Bill of Costs.