Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
27 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A court case had a huge bill for legal costs. The judge decided who should pay what. Because one side didn't have their paperwork ready on time, they had to pay some of the extra costs. The judge carefully looked at all the costs and cut some down. The question of who pays interest on the money owed was too complicated for the judge and was sent to a different court.
Key Facts
- •Detailed assessment of a bill of costs totaling £105,133.49.
- •Initial assessment reduced the bill to £88,409.44.
- •Two days of hearings and two written judgments were required.
- •Dispute over claimants' retainer with their solicitors caused an adjournment.
- •Claimants subsequently produced a 10-page witness statement and a 3,000+ page electronic bundle.
- •Defendants argued for a 'no order as to costs'.
- •Claimants' offer to settle was not made under Part 36.
- •Dispute over interest calculations.
Legal Principles
CPR rule 47.20 presumes the costs of detailed assessment proceedings will be the receiving party's.
CPR rule 47.20
The court can make a different order regarding costs, considering the conduct of the parties, the amount of any reduction to the bill, and the reasonableness of claiming or disputing costs.
CPR rule 47.20(3)
Part 36 offers can influence costs orders, often leading to indemnity costs if not beaten.
CPR 36.17
Claimants are entitled to interest at 8% under the Judgment Act.
The Judgment Act
Outcomes
Claimants awarded costs on the standard basis, except for the costs of the hearing on 25 May 2023.
Defendants' argument regarding adjournment was partially accepted; claimants' actions deemed partly responsible for the adjournment.
Claimants' costs quantified at £21,339.08 after considering various factors.
Detailed assessment of individual cost items, with adjustments made based on reasonableness and proportionality.
No order made regarding interest.
Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to modify the statutory entitlement to interest. Dispute over offsetting interest referred to County Court.
Similar Cases
Ineos Upstream Limited & Ors v Joseph Boyd & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Alamantas Ruzge & Anor v Taimour Asghar (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 78 (KB)