CourtService After strenuously contested proceedings in the County Court for an account the claimant recovered some andpound;18,000, and subsequently submitted a bill for andpound;86,000 odd. The indemnity principle was raised before a Deputy Costs Judge who then asked to see the client care letter, the bill of costs sent to the client and the calculations of payments made thereunder, but refused to show these documents to the paying party, holding that he was satisfied that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle after considering the documents, and then proceeded with the assessment, which resulted in some, but only modest, reductions in the figure claimed. The defendant appealed, contending that he should have been permitted to see the documents shown to the Costs Judge.
In this case, in contrast with the case of South Coast Shipping (No.15 of 2001), the learned Judge felt able to decide the issue purely on careful analysis of the English authorities, without reference to the European legislation or authorities, though they were cited to him.
The gist of the Judge’s decision allowing the appeal is in paragraph 33 of his judgment, which reads:
‘In my view, the procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair. I can in any event see no good reason why the client care letter and the payment calculations could not have been disclosed to the defendant, since I have not been persuaded that they were privileged. But if anything in them might have been regarded as privileged, one course which might at least have been considered was the redaction from them of the privileged parts, a course which could or might also have been considered in relation to Wakefields’ bills. Ultimately, however, this was a simple situation in which the claimant chose to prove his version of a disputed issue of fact by reference to certain documents. In my view, the basic principle is that, if he wanted to do so, fairness required him also to disclose the documents to the defendant.’
The learned Judge earlier held that in his opinion the bill to the client was, on the basis of the judgment of Sir G J Turner V-C in Chant v Brown [1852] 9 HARE 790, privileged from production.
Judges:
Mr Justice Rimer sitting with Assessors
Citations:
[2002] 1 Costs LR 98, [2001] EW Costs 17, [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) CA 14-Feb-2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Legal Professions
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185957