Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

N Christodoulides v C Holbech

[2024] EWHC 2172 (SCCO)
A person tried to challenge a judge's initial cost ruling but didn't follow the proper procedure. The judge explained the rules, but the person still didn't comply. Because of this, the judge's original ruling stood, emphasizing that everyone, even those without lawyers, must follow court rules.

Key Facts

  • Applicant (Ms Christodoulides) applied to revisit a provisional costs assessment.
  • Application was for an oral hearing to challenge the assessment.
  • The initial provisional assessment was made on 7 May 2024 without a hearing.
  • Applicant's request for an oral hearing (12 April 2024 letter) did not comply with CPR 47.15(8).
  • Applicant's subsequent application also failed to comply with CPR 47.15(8).
  • Applicant appeared in person; Respondent was represented.

Legal Principles

CPR 47.15(7): A party challenging a provisional assessment must, within 21 days, file a written request for an oral hearing identifying the items to be reviewed and providing a time estimate. If not, the provisional assessment is binding save in exceptional circumstances.

CPR 47.15(7)

CPR 47.15(8): Written request must identify items to be reviewed and provide a time estimate for the hearing.

CPR 47.15(8)

Relief from sanctions is not automatically granted to litigants in person; a lower standard of compliance is not justified. While allowances may be made for case management, compliance with rules is expected.

Barton v Wright Hassell LLP [2018] UKSC 12; [2018] 1 WLR 1119; R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 1633; [2015] 1 WLR

Exceptional circumstances are required for relief from non-compliance with CPR 47.15(7). The threshold is high.

Implicit in CPR 47.15(7)

CPR 44.14 allows for disallowance of costs due to misconduct.

CPR 44.14

Serious allegations alone do not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules.

Gentry v Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141; [2016] 1 WLR 2696

Outcomes

Applicant's application to revisit the provisional costs assessment was dismissed.

Applicant failed to comply with CPR 47.15(8) in both her initial letter and subsequent application. No exceptional circumstances justified relief from this non-compliance. The application lacked focus and didn't address why the rules couldn't be followed.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.