Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2014


Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman.
Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the matter was restricted to the preparation of the costs schedule was not such. He had had no involvement in the conduct and presentation of the case. The schedule was not correctly validated, but, applying the rule from Summit Navigation, the defect was technical and no question of relief from sanctions arose: ‘even in the more robust environment that now obtains, the consequences of refusing relief seem to me to be disproportionate, unjust and therefore contrary to the overriding objective. The proportionate and just response, given that no one has been significantly disadvantaged by the irregularity, is to require it to be remedied at the Defendant’s cost and to compensate the Third Party for the modest cost involved in bringing the matter to the attention of the Court, summarily assessed in the sum of andpound;50.’

Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC), [2014] WLR(D) 270
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 2.3.1
AppliedSummit Navigation Ltd and Another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare Sa Ardaf Sa and Another ComC 21-Feb-2014
The commercial court will not encourage time wasting procedural applications. Leggatt J summarised the principles that should be applied on an application for relief from sanctions: ‘i) On an application for relief from a sanction under CPR 3.9, it . .
CitedThe Bank of Ireland and Another v Philip Pank Partnership TCC 12-Feb-2014
It is an irregularity for a costs budget to fail to set out the Statement of truth in full. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.533819