The appellant challenged intervention proceedings brought against his solicitors practice by the respondent. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Society had obtained summary judgment rejecting the application, and awarding costs. The solicitor said that whilst an appeal was outstanding in the disciplinary proceedings, it was wrong to grant summary judgment.
Held: A successful appeal need not mean that the intervention would necessarily be withdrawn. The test for that was whether the Law Society had ‘reason to suspect dishonesty’. The disciplinary appeal had in any event since failed. No other order now remained realistic. As to costs (andpound;150,000), the Society had claimed to be entitled to be paid its costs on an indemnity basis. The acts which led to the intervention must have been within the knowledge of the appellants. ‘The courts have declined to lay down any general guidance on the principles which should lead to an award of costs on the indemnity basis. However . . costs will normally be awarded on the standard basis ‘unless there is some element of a party’s conduct of the case which deserves some mark of disapproval. It is not just to penalise a party for running litigation which it has lost. Advancing a case which is unlikely to succeed or which fails in fact is not a sufficient reason for the award of costs on the indemnity basis’ Therefore when considering an application for the award of costs on the indemnity basis, the court is concerned principally with the losing party’s conduct of the case, rather than the substantive merits of his position. The court had to look at the proportionality of the action. The judge had erred in his application of the Lownds criteria, and an order for payment of costs on the standard basis was substituted. As to the order for interim payment, though the sums were substantial, the judge had exercised a discretion and hhe appeared to be justified.
Judges:
Carnwath, Sedley, Auld LJJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 849
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Buckley v Law Society (No 2) ChD 1984
A court deciding a case about a solicitor under paragraph 6(5) of schedule 1 should come to its conclusion in the light of all the evidence existing at the time the matter came to be decided and not at the time of the relevant intervention. When . .
Cited – Holder v Law Society CA 24-Jan-2003
The Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice. He complained that the intervention was disproportionate, and by removing his right to enjoyment of his possession, infringed his human rights. The Society appealed the finding that an . .
Cited – Dooley v The Law Society (No 1) ChD 15-Sep-2000
When considering an application for the Law Society to be ordered to withdraw an intevention in a solicitor’s practice, the court undertakes a two stage process: ‘First it must decide whether the grounds under paragraph 1 are made out; in this case, . .
Cited – Kiam II v MGN Ltd (2) CA 6-Feb-2002
An appeal against a damages award in a defamation case had been unsuccessful. The claimant now appealed for the award of indemnity costs. The claimant had made an offer of compromise, which had been ignored by the defendant.
Held: If a party . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .
Cited – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) PatC 18-Feb-2003
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs . .
See Also – Simms v Law Society Admn 17-Mar-2005
The appellant challenged being struck of the solicitors roll.
Held: ‘The most serious finding of the Tribunal was, of course, that [Mr Simms] was dishonest. We agree with the Tribunal that the pattern of behaviour by [Mr Simms] establishes . .
Appeal from – Simms v Law Society Admn 17-May-2005
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Conlon and Another v Simms ChD 9-Mar-2006
Partners in a solicitors practice fell out after one was struck off by the Law Society. The remaining partners claimed damages alleging that they had been drawn into the partnership after misrepresentations by the defendant about it, and sought to . .
Cited – Ghafoor and others v Cliff and others ChD 11-Apr-2006
The applicant had obtained revocation of a grant of administration ad colligenda bona in the estate, and having succeeded, now sought costs. The question was whether there had been proper reasons for the application for the grant. The deceased’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228432
