References: Times 04-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2321 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
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.
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules
This case cites:
- See Also – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others -v- Tucker and others ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2170 (Ch))
. . - Cited – London Scottish Benefit Society -v- Chorley Crawford and Chester ((1884) 13 QBD 872)
A practising solicitor who represented himself in litigation was entitled to recover costs for his own time as if he had employed a solicitor. . . - Applied – In re Nossen’s Letter Patent ([1969] 1 WLR 638)
. . - Cited – Amec Process and Energy Ltd -v- Stork Engineers & Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3) (Unreported, 15 March 2002)
. . - Cited – Admiral Management Services Ltd -v- Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others ChD (Times 26-Mar-02, Gazette 18-Apr-02, [2002] 1 WLR 2722, Bailii, [2002] EWHC 233 (Ch), [2002] FSR 59, [2002] CP Rep 37, [2003] 2 All ER 1017, [2003] 1 Costs LR 1)
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 . .
