The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
Held: As professionals there was no reason to distinguish the cost to the defendants of resisting the claims in the time they had spent. However the sums recovered would be restricted in accordance with the principles in Nossen.
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 2321 (Ch), Times 04-Nov-2005
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
See Also – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others ChD 9-Sep-2005
. .
Cited – London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester CA 30-May-1884
Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders . .
Applied – In re Nossen’s Letter Patent 1969
. .
Cited – Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3) 15-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others ChD 4-Mar-2002
The claimants suspected the defendants of wrongfully using their confidential information. Their staff made an initial investigation. They obtained a search and seizure order; and the material seized was examined by the staff. A Tomlin Order was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234456
