Inside Law 6
- 1. INSIDE LAW ISSUE 6 - Summer 2013 THE QUARTERLY MAGAZINE FOR THE LAW INDUSTRY Controlling Costs (Dominic Regan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Controlling Client Costs (Sarah Page-croft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6 It’s time to fight back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 ABI Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Costs in the Court of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9 Published by: Controlling Claimant Costs through the new EL/ PL Portal In this issue COSTINGSLAW COSTS DRAFTSMEN & CONSULTANTS Controlling Costs Post-Jackson Professor Dominic Reagan Sarah Page-Croft
- 2. 2 Clarity at Last! For cases that do not go beyond Provisional Assessment, the £1500.00 allowance acts as a cap on recovery of Party/Party costs and quite rightly excludes the court fee, which alone can be as much as £980 not to forget VAT. Amendments have been made to the CPR coming into force 1st October 2013. Costs Budgets are still a hot topic and conversations are held daily with clients and prospective clients who wish to receive guidance and advice. Please, please, please instruct your Costs Lawyer/Draftsman in plenty of time to ensure matters are not rushed. Ideally as soon as matters have been issued, which gives an ample window for the exercise to be carried out and it is a must that Solicitor client and Costs Lawyer confer in order that they work as a team. There is much thought to be given to budgets and crucial assumptions to be made, Counsel and experts are all to be involved in the process in stating their reasonable fees. The costs budgeting regime was thrown into the spotlight again with the firm representing Andrew Mitchell MP in his Libel action ‘plebgate’, failed to submit a costs budget in time. Failure to get a budget in seven days before the case management conference limited the budget to court fees only. Be warned! No longer can budgets be prepared on short notice, timing is the key. With August almost over as I write, and with emails met with I am on annual leave and will revert when I return to the office, it has given us the opportunity in our office to surface and take a deep breath, ready for the influx of Budgets expected from September onwards. Should you wish to know more about our Budgeting service, please feel free to call our offices and speak with either Paul Kay or myself who will be happy to talk things through with you or alternatively email addresses as below. Enjoy your read. Paul@rcostings.co.uk Paul.kay@rcostings.co.uk Paul Reason Costs Lawyer and Managing Director. Welcome to Inside Law Things have changed and times are different.There is to be greater scrutiny of costs than ever before. Oddly, a series of recent cases identify avoidable errors. Equally, if you are the paying party then these represent useful arguments to throw at the other side. 1. No matter how glamorous your expert, do not have them in court for the entirety of the hearing unless there is something monumental about the case. In ELVANITE FULL CIRCLE LTD V AMEC (2013) EWHC 1643 (TCC) Coulson J rightly declared that it was completely unnecessary and so unsustainable for one expert to attend every day of the trial. Do ask yourself if a case warrants an expert at all. In lower value cases there is now a real temptation for Judges to foist a single joint expert upon the parties since one expert ought to be cheaper than two. 2. The ELVANITE decision is also well worth reading because the Judge gives guidance on when it might be just to vary a court budget. Critically, he says at paragraph 54 of the transcript that it is no good reason to adjust the numbers where they had “woefully underestimated the experts’ fees”. I have no financial interest here but, frankly, i think it bonkers to draw a budget without some input, great or small, from your chosen costs lawyer. 3. Finally, ELVANITE states at paragraph 50 that, post Jackson, “questions of prejudice are likely to be much less relevant than they were before”. Exactly. No one should think that they can now escape punishment for breaching the Rules just because it does not directly damage their opponent. The new thinking is that Rules are there to be obeyed and to default is a wrong in itself. 4. Anyone preparing witness statements should be much more precise and selective than ever before. In NICHOLLS V LADBROKES (2013) EWCA Civ.1963 Lord Justice Jackson gave some, as ever, superb guidance which every defendant should take to heart. ”The defence of any personal injury case is a serious task, to be undertaken in a fair and responsible manner. It is inappropriate to serve witness statements which refute every allegation, whether right or wrong “(at para.69). He continued “the vast majority of personal injury actions settle before trial on the basis of the written evidence served. Therefore the written evidence matters, even if a party knows that it will abandon certain points in the event of a trial” (para.70). Because of unsatisfactory conduct in this regard the winning defendant lost 20% of all costs. 5. The cost of Counsel is an integral part of the litigation spend. Having watched the modest legend that is HHJ Simon Brown QC in the budgeting pilot, you and your clients now need to decide whether the proposed advocate is justified. Do we need a silk? Is this the right person for the job having regard to complexity, content and potential value? If a decision is taken that you suspect might ultimately be challenged then make a contemporaneous note for the file setting out your justification. It can do no harm. 6. It might sound trite but I believe that every litigator will be safer if, at every step along the litigation path, they ask themselves whether what they are proposing to do is reasonable. Different people may come up with different replies but that is now the simple, sensible litmus test. 7. No one, not even Sir Rupert, knows what proportionality means today. That is a question to be answered by the Court Of Appeal. I suggest that keeping a watchful eye on the relationship between damages and costs will probably be your smartest move to avoid trouble . Dominic Regan is, with Jef Zindani, the co -author of ‘ Surviving Jackson ‘July 2013 published by Sun at £100. Controlling Costs Professor Dom Regan The leading expert in the field of civil procedure and adviser to the top judiciary on law reform
- 3. Each day in the UK, three people are paralysed through spinal cord injury. With your support SIA can help rebuild full, active, independent and happy lives… …because life needn’t stop when you’re paralysed What we do… SIA represents the interest of spinal cord injured people, helping each individual reach their potential after injury by providing essential services and publications. One of our key services is our Community Peer Support Team. This service provides support to spinal cord injured people and their families in District General Hospitals. R Costings are proud to support… SIA member at home with her son Fundraising Events Calendar Members of the Community Peer Support Team 3 For more information on SIA visit: www.spinal.co.uk or call us on 0845 678 6633
- 4. F ocusing on the new portal, this will be implemented from the 31st July 2013. It will be accompanied by a separate and slightly more generous Fixed Recoverable Costs regime (FRC) for cases falling out of the portal. The Government wants to ensure that costs outside the portal are controlled as efficiently as costs within. For the time being, EL Disease claims which fall out of the portal will not be subject to FRC, the old costs regime should be followed. EL Disease claims which remain within the portal system, where liability is admitted, will be subject to the fixed portal costs. Given that disease claims which fall out of the portal go into standard costs, the definition of disease will be important going forward. It is important to ensure that claims are not run outside the portal on the grounds that they are disease claims only to settle and be awarded portal costs on the grounds that the claim was not, after all, a disease claim. Disease means: “a disease that the claimant is alleged to have contracted as a consequence of the employer’s breach of statutory or common law duties of care in the course of the employee’s employment, other than a physical or psychological injury caused by an accident or other single event” Where a claim arises from an EL or PL accident which occurred on or after the end of July 2013, the claim will proceed through the new portal. Disease claims are slightly different in that these claims will proceed through the portal if notification of a claim is given on or after the end of July 2013. WHEN THE PORTAL DOES NOT APPLY The portal does not apply to claims where, if proceedings were issued, the small claims track would be the normal track. However, in circumstances where the Claimant believed that the claim was worth over £1,000.00 but then subsequently it transpires that the value of the claim is less than £1,000.00, the Claimant is entitled to Stage 1 fixed portal costs and, if relevant, Stage 2 fixed portal costs. The portal will cease to apply if the Claimant notifies the Defendant that the claim has been re-valued at greater than £25,000.00. Claims which no longer continue under the portal cannot subsequently re-enter the process. The portal does not apply to claims where the Claimant or Defendant acts as personal representative of a deceased person, or where the Claimant or Defendant is a protected party. The portal does not apply in PL claims where the Defendant is an individual; where the Claimant is bankrupt or where the Defendant is bankrupt and there is no identifiable insurer. The portal does not apply in disease claims with more than one Defendant; for a personal injury arising from an accident which occurred outside England and Wales; for damages in relation to harm, abuse or neglect of or by children or vulnerable adults. The portal does not apply to claims for clinical negligence or mesothelioma. As can be seen from the above tables (click the image to download), FRC are more generous than fixed portal costs. It is therefore important to be aware of when/ how claims fall out of the portal and into FRC. In response to its consultation on Solving Disputes in the County Court, the Government committed to extend the current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Personal Injury scheme vertically, by including claims up to a value of £25,000.00, and horizontally, by including Employers Liability (EL) and Public Liability (PL) claims up to a value of £25,000.00 (on a full liability basis including pecuniary losses but excluding interest). Controlling Claimants Costs Sarah Page-Croft Law Costs Draftsman 4
- 5. STAGE ONE: IMPORTANT TIMESCALES AND WHEN A CLAIM MIGHT FALL OUT OF THE PORTAL The intention of the new portal is that Solicitors will report claims directly via the portal to the relevant insurer rather than to the Defendant for onward transmission. A copy of the claim will still have to be sent to the Defendant. Obviously the onus will be on the Claimant to identify the relevant insurer before a claim is submitted. The Defendant will have to be ready to investigate the claim within one working day (next day after receipt of the CNF) by sending an electronic acknowledgement of the claim to the Claimant. Insurers will then have 30 working days to provide a decision upon liability for an EL claim and 40 working days for a PL claim. In an EL claim where liability is admitted, wages information must be provided to the Claimant within 20 days. Where liability is admitted, the Defendant must pay the Stage 1 fixed portal costs, as detailed in the table below, within 10 days after receiving the Stage 2 Settlement Pack. If the Defendant fails to pay, the Claimant may give written notice that the claim will no longer continue in the portal. The Claimant has 10 days after the expiry of the period to send such notice. Claims will fall out of the portal at this stage if the Defendant considers that inadequate mandatory information has been provided in the CNF; if the Defendant alleges contributory negligence; if the Defendant does not send the CNF response or if the Defendant denies liability. STAGE TWO: IMPORTANT TIMESCALES AND WHEN A CLAIM MIGHT FALL OUT OF THE PORTAL The Claimant has 15 days from the date of the Claimant approving the medical or expert report to send to the Defendant the Stage 2 Settlement Pack. The Defendant then has 35 days to consider the Stage 2 Settlement Pack (the total consideration period). An extension can be agreed. Claims will fall out of the portal at this stage if the Defendant gives notice to the Claimant within the consideration period that they consider that, if proceedings were issued, the small claims track would be the normal track; if the Defendant withdraws their admission of liability within the consideration period; if the Defendant does not respond within the initial consideration period or when an offer is withdrawn after the total consideration period. It should be noted that where the value of the claim for damages is more than £10,000.00 and an advice is reasonably required to value the claim from a specialist Solicitor or Counsel, then the fixed portal costs as set out in the first table below can include an additional amount (CPR 45.23B). TIMESCALES WITHIN THE PORTAL The period for response starts the first business day after the information was sent. The period for response can be varied by agreement except for the 30/40 day period for liability decisions and except for the rule specified at paragraph 7.34 of the Pre- Action Protocol for EL/PL claims – “Where a party makes an offer 5 days or less before the end of the total consideration period, there will be a further period of 5 days after the end of the total consideration period for the relevant party to consider that offer”. through the new EL/ PL Portal 5 Legal Representatives Fixed Costs for Claims Within the RTA and EL/PL Protocols Claims of £1k - £10k Claims of £10k - £25k Stage 1 Stage 2 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Total RTA Claims £200 £300 £500 £200 £600 £800 EL/PL Claims £300 £600 £900 £300 £1,300 £1,600 Legal Representatives Fixed Recoverable Costs for RTA, EL & PL Claims Falling Out of the RTA and EL/PL Protocols Settles Pre issue £1,000- £5,000 Settles Pre issue £5,001- £10,000 Settles Pre issue £10,001- £25,000 Settles Post issue Pre- Allocation Settles Post- Allocation Pre-listing Settles Post- listing Pre-trial Trial Advocacy Fee Road Traffic Accident Fixed Costs Greater of £550 or £100 + 20% of Damages £1,100 + 15% of Damages over £5k £1,930 +10% of Damages over £10k £1,160 + 20% of Damages £1,880 + 20% of Damages £2,655 + 20% of Damages £500 (to £3,000) £710 (£3-10,000) £1,070 (£10-15,000) £1,705 (£15,000+) Employers Liability Fixed Costs £950 +17.5% of Damages £1,855 +12.5% of Damages over £5k £2,500 +10% of Damages over £10k £2,630 + 20% of Damages £3,350 + 25% of Damages £4,280 + 30% of Damages £500 (to £3,000) £710 (£3-10,000) £1,070 (£10-15,000) £1,705 (£15,000+) Public Liability Fixed Costs £950 +17.5% of Damages £1,855 +10% of Damages over £5k £2,370 + 10% of Damages Over £10k £2,450 +17.5% of Damages £3,065 +22.5% of Damages £3,790 +27.5% of Damages £500 (to £3,000) £710 (£3-10,000) £1,070 (£10-15,000) £1,705 (£15,000+) Don’t forget Disbursements on top – CPR 45.19. If the Claimant resides, and you practice in, the County Court districts listed in CPD 2.6 supplementing CPR 45 – an additional 12.5% on the fixed costs in the second table is recoverable. The figures above are net of VAT.
- 6. 6 ESCAPING THE PORTAL ALTOGETHER It is attractive from a costs perspective to obtain evidence which realistically values a claim at over £25,000.00 at the outset to escape the portal altogether. Consideration should be given to subrogated claims for loss of earnings or medical treatment at or before the CNF stage as the inclusion of these may boost the value of the claim to over £25,000.00 and therefore out of the portal. However, if a Claimant reasonably (emphasis added) believes the claim to be worth more than £25,000.00, and pursues the claim outside the portal, but then subsequently settles the claim for less, is the Claimant still entitled to non-portal costs? It is clear that where a Claimant unreasonably removes a claim from the portal, only portal costs are recoverable. Paragraph 7.59 of the new EL/PL protocol provides that where a court considers that a Claimant acted unreasonably in serving notice that the claim was unsuitable for the portal it will award no more than portal costs. There is recent case law to support this. In Uppal v. Daudia LTLPI 09/07/12 the Claimant removed the claim from the portal because the Defendant failed to make an offer in response to the Claimants counter-offer within the total consideration period. The Judge held that there was no such requirement. The Defendant need only respond to the Claimants first offer within the initial consideration period. The Claimant was found to have unreasonably left the portal and was ordered to pay the Defendants costs on an indemnity basis. In Jaykishan Patel v. Fortis Insurance Ltd LTL 11/01/12(11) the Defendant was unable to send an acknowledgement to the CNF due to a technical fault with the software used. However, within 48 hours of the CNF the Defendant had responded with a full response admitting liability. On the same day, the Claimant removed the claim from the portal. The Claimant’s conduct was found to be unreasonable because technical non-compliance with the portal was not a ground for removing a claim from the portal. The Claimant was restricted to portal costs. These cases should be viewed as a clear warning to Claimant Solicitors not to unreasonably remove cases from the portal. You should therefore familiarise yourself with the new portal rules which can be found in The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.6) Rules 2013. Finally, it should be further noted that if there are exceptional circumstances the Court can consider a claim for an amount of costs greater than the FRC set out in the second table below and summarily assess the costs or make an order for the costs to be subject to detailed assessment. However, if costs are assessed at a sum less than 20% greater than the amount of FRC, then only FRC or the assessed costs (whichever is the lesser of the two) will be awarded. Sarah Page-Croft is a Law Costs Draftsman with R Costings, specialising in the drafting of personal injury bills funded by way of CFA’s, CCFA’s and legal expenses insurance. She has represented both Claimants and Defendants in cost negotiations and has attended detailed assessment hearings. About The Author... W ith a Civil costs war looming, I must question why we have overhauled the litigation funding landscape when Lord Justice Jackson’s own report states that only 10% of claims were disproportionate (the remedy ironically seems disproportionate to the problem). Further I must question could we, as lawyers, have done more to prevent this? What did we achieve with our papers, petitions and judicial review? The answer is next to nothing, as they fell on deaf ears. The biggest impact of the reforms will be on the personal injury industry and only the large firms, who make small profit margins over high volumes of cases, will survive. Save for the large firms the personal injury industry is on the ropes, unsteady on its feet staring into a blurry abyss, just waiting for a knockout punch (which might be delivered in raising the small claims limit). So the real question is what do we do now? And the answer is that it is time for an Ali style rope a dope. We have lost the CFA argument with the government so we need to focus on the stopping the small claims limit being raised and ensuring that fixed costs are not introduced into the fast track. Our methods of lobbying with papers and petitions have not worked so we need to take a new approach and (credit where credit is due) I am grateful to a Partner of a large PI firm for this suggestion: we need to educate the people. The large PI firms need to work together and lobby the government through television commercials and public debates. We need to use the media to communicate a message and dispel the idea, created by the tabloids, of greedy fat cat lawyers. Further, we need to be truthful in our campaigns. State that we will be paid x for x amount of hours work and quite simply we will not undertake that work as the proposed fees do not provide sufficient remuneration. The public are not fools and they know that when we are arguing about access to justice we are doing so because it affects our own pocket. But what they do not know is how much we are paid, for these cases, and if they were to know their perception would change. The other benefit of this approach is that it would surprise the government. They can ignore our petitions and papers but they would not be able to ignore a public campaign. Our current lobbying techniques are archaic and we need to adapt and, most importantly, we need to change the public’s perception. Christopher McCauley Barrister, Guildford Chambers Chris specialises in costs and litigation funding and is Counsel at Guildford Chambers. Prior to becoming Costs Counsel, Chris worked as a Solicitor Advocate (Civil) in the advocacy department of a large national personal injury firm. He regularly conducts detailed assessments in the Senior Courts Costs Office and in County Courts. E: CMcCauley@guildfordchambers.com It’s time to fight back
- 7. 7 ABI Statement I recently read a quote from Mr Dalton of the ABI, on the litigation futures website that stated ‘it is time we had an open and honest debate about whether a minor low speed shunt in a supermarket car park resulting in a sore neck for a couple of days justifies thousands of pounds in compensation. But it needs to be a grown up debate: with analysis rather than anecdotes and evidence rather than emotion. Whatever the outcome, insurers will provide the agreed level of compensation to Claimants and build that into car insurance premiums.’ Before turning to the points raised by Mr Dalton I would like to state the following: for too long our industries have been at loggerheads and rather than tear strips off each other I have better suggestion. Let’s put our cards on the table and be honest. I have a mixed practice of Claimant and Defendant work and sometimes (but not often) I see claims where the costs are extortionate for the matter they relate to. However Defendants, in my opinion, often undervalue claims due, largely, to an unwillingness to depart from what Collosus tells them and this causes unnecessary costs to be incurred. If the small claims limit is increased it will, most likely, cripple the PI industry and the area of law will stagnate as the best lawyers will be driven out. Further, in my opinion, an independent computer system generating the quantification of awards will undercompensate people with genuine claims as it will fail to take account of the specific facts of the case. At present the insurance industry is throwing money away. For example by sending Defendant Counsel to infant approvals where everything is agreed. Ignoring their Solicitor, and Counsel, when they are telling the insurance company’s case handler that the offer is insufficient and they will lose at trial. Therefore, rather than continue to mudsling why do we not try to act responsibly and work together? Lawyers are not actuaries and cannot advise you on the level of your premiums, or your business model, but we can point out to you where you are wasting money. Rather than go to war, over raising the small claims limit, why don’t we sit down with the insurers and explain to them where they are wasting money in litigation? Further a sensible step would be for the two industries to look at civil procedure rules and see where the steps can be simplified to save costs. Turning to Mr Dalton’s comments, and my intention is not to be critical but, the quantum relating to a sore neck for a couple of days would be a couple of hundred pounds, if that, not thousands of pounds. However his suggestion of public debates is a good idea. But, in these debates, I would suggest that we also look at the statistics relating to Defendant insurers’ success rates, in Courts, and the differences between their first offer and the amount actually awarded at trial. Further, let’s not ignore the law. Stating that the system is broken and insurers cannot afford to keep paying out to this supposed ‘compensation culture’ is not an answer to the question: why should we treat a claim for a few weeks differently from a claim for a year? As in both cases the Claimant has been injured through no fault of his own and our justice system is compensatory i.e. fundamental to the system is the idea wronged party, irrespective of the value of the claim, should be put back in the position he would have been but for the accident. Profit is, of course, important to any business but it is not a consideration that should outweigh the preservation of justice.
- 8. 8 T he Court Order or Direction will state whether fixed costs or remuneration applies, or whether there is to be a Detailed Assessment by a Costs Officer. Where a Court Order or Direction provides for a Detailed Assessment of costs, the Deputy may elect to take fixed costs or remuneration in lieu of a Detailed Assessment. Where a Deputy does not elect to take fixed costs, a Costs Lawyer needs to be instructed to prepare a detailed Bill of Costs in respect of the General Management costs. The overriding objective for a Deputy of the Court of Protection, or for Solicitors advising a lay Deputy; is to look after the interest of the Patient. Cases in this area are growing in size and complexity and it is important that a Deputy of the Court of Protection, or for Solicitors advising a lay Deputy, that they receive fair and just remuneration for this important work. The matter of Leighanne Radcliffe, before Master O’Hare on 20 December 2004, dealt with arguments as to what could and could not be recovered upon assessment of a Bill arising from General Management costs. The Bill of Costs submitted was in relation to General Management costs for the period 14 August 2002 to 13 August 2003, whereby the Provisional Assessment was not accepted and the matter proceeded to a formal Detailed Assessment (conducted by exchange of letters). Thereafter, permission to Appeal was granted. The Appeal was heard before Master O’Hare. Two aspects of the decision made by Costs Officer Sainthouse were challenged, namely; inter- fee earner discussions and time spent on letters said to enclose simple invoices and payments thereof. Turning firstly to inter-fee earner discussions, Master O’Hare followed the principles set out as per R v Sandhu, 29 November 1984, reported in the Lord Chancellor’s Department Taxing Compendium. He ruled that time spent with regard to “supervision of staff with regard to the conduct of the case, allocation of accounts, listing difficulties, use of Enquiry Agents, evidence and other related matter should be disallowed”. He commented at paragraph 20: “In my judgment it is always, or almost always, inappropriate for a claim to be made for letters sent by one fee earner to another in the same firm. The allocation of tasks between them is part of the irrecoverable overhead of the firm. If the senior fee earner needs to be informed of some aspect of a matter, he should simply read the relevant attendance note when the file is sent to him”. Master O’Hare did however state that inter-fee earner discussions should be allowed in a situation whereby “an unexpected turn of events where the senior solicitor’s extra experience and weight would be an essential reinforcement”. Deputies therefore need to bear in mind that inter-fee earner communication which had not added anything to the value of the legal proceedings will not be allowed when the matter is provisionally assessed by the SCCO. Turning to time spent on letters said to enclose simple invoices and payments thereof, Master O’Hare gave guidance and allowed 3 minutes per letter as reasonable, stating that “where the volume of Bill paying letters is high, I do not think it is appropriate to apply the general 6 minute allowance to each of them”. The letters in question are payments of bills for water bills, electricity bills, telephone bills, satellite TV bills and the like and Master O’Hare further stated “in making that allowance I would disallow the extra time for generally “looking after the matter””. A Deputy needs to record detailed contemporaneous attendance notes when incurring time so as to maximise their costs recovery. For example, if the case takes “an unexpected turn of events”, then record this on the attendance note to explain why the inter-fee Costs Peter Jones Costs Managerin the court of protection At R Costings, our drafting team, consisting of Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen, specialise in drafting detailed Bills of Costs. One of the areas we specialise is costs in the Court of Protection. Costs Lawyers can help the Court of Protection Deputies manage their General Management costs by advising on the costs which are recoverable, whilst recognising the often sensitive nature of these cases.
- 9. 9 earner discussion was recoverable in order to act in the Patients best interests. The file of papers going to the SCCO will be provisionally assessed by the SCCO and therefore each and every attendance note and letter written needs to satisfy the Deputies obligation that they are looking after the interests of their Patient. Remember, there is no Advocate attending the Provisional Assessment Hearing to justify the costs that you have reasonably incurred. Another example of this could be duplicated fee earner attendances to attend the Patient. There may be a reasonable explanation as to why the Deputy and a separate fee earner both attended the Patient (behavioural problems of the Patient for example) and therefore this needs to be highlighted on the attendance note so as to justify these costs incurred. Another age-old question is the rates to be applied for General Management costs in the Court of Protection. Master Haworth considered this in the matter of Smith (& Others) on 20 October 2007. This case considered whether more complex non-routine work could justify a higher hourly rate and similarly, for routine and straightforward cases, whether a rate lower than those prescribed by the SCCO should apply. Upon assessment, the Defendant’s argued that lower rates should apply due to the routine and simplistic nature of the General Management year; however, the Appellant argued that the rates were in accordance with the SCCO Guideline rates and therefore should be allowed as claimed. Master Haworth considered the previous assessed Bills whereby the Appellant had recovered the Guideline hourly rates consistently over 90% of their General Management year Bills. Master Haworth agreed with the Appellant who stated that they were demonstrating a greater level of responsibility, skill and expertise on both routine and complex matters that was unseen in other legal professions and therefore rejected the Defendant’s submission in reducing the hourly rates to those lower than the Guideline rates. This case highlights that whilst hourly rates for work undertaken in any Court of Protection will always be that of the Costs Officer’s discretion, difficult and complex cases can merit higher rates than the Guideline rates and should not be reduced simply on the basis of the area of Law. Often, clients lack capacity to manage their own affairs and make decisions which places additional stress upon the Deputy in acting in the Patient’s best interests. It is not only evident that this needs to be highlighted within the file of papers (again when making attendance notes) but also when the Bill of Costs is drafted, reference should be made to the Seven Pillars of Wisdom contained in CPR 44.4. Instances of this could be the importance of matter to all parties, the complexity of the matter and the skill, effort and specialist knowledge required by the Deputy, particularly where a Deputy is acting for a Patient who lacks capacity to manage their own affairs. Following the two cases above, it is clear that detailed, accurate contemporaneous attendance notes need to be drafted to justify exactly why costs have been incurred and similarly, if the matter is of a complex nature, a succinct narrative in the Bill of Costs to justify the hourly rates claimed. R Costings regularly submit Bills for provisional assessment in the Court of Protection and have knowledge and experience of what the SCCO allow when assessing Bills. If you are interested in utilising the services of R Costings Limited to deal with your costs in Court of Protection, then please do not hesitate to contact us.
- 10. 10 For further information on our asbestos expert witness service please call us today: Telephone: 020 7734 6655 Email: enquiries@deriskuk.com www.deriskuk.com ExpertWitness inasbestos management, abatement& removalcases. Derisk provide expert-witness advice and guidance for the preparation of preliminary pre-action expert advice reports and the preparation of court compliant expert witness reports. Compliant with Part 35 of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 35) and its associated Practice Direction (PD 35). Consultant areas: ■ Asbestos Management ■ Asbestos Abatement ■ Asbestos Removal If your practice specializes in any of the following areas:- • RTA • Clinical/Medical Negligence • Dental Negligence • Public liability • Employers Liability • Occupiers Liability • Industrial Disease • Accident Abroad • Sports Injuries What could you add to our panel of members? mayiclaimyour personal injury specialists Please contact us at enquiries@mayiclaim.co.uk advising how your company could service the needs of our business. www.mayiclaim.co.uk
- 11. 11 Advertising If you would like to advertise in Inside Law then please contact us on: info@rcostings.co.uk Free Nationwide Courier Service R Costings offers a free courier service collecting and delivering your files securely nationwide. R Costings currently have 4 vans and drivers who collect and deliver all over England and Wales on a daily basis and are able to comply with any request the following working day. Should this be of interest please do not hesitate to contact Ginnie Marsh on 01480 463499 or ginnie@rcostings.co.uk R Costings Services... R Costings offer advice and assistance at all stages of the claim to ensure that you maximise your costs recovery and profit. The following gives you an overview of when you should consider contacting us for any assistance. • Drafting Bills, Costs Budgets, Points of Dispute, Points of Reply and Skeleton Arguments and any Applications. • Conducting all negotiations with the paying party and own insurers, Counsel. • Conducting advocacy at any costs related hearings nationwide. • Assisting with estimates, statements and budgets during the substantive litigation. STAGE ONE • Hourly rates advice on recommended charged rates. • CFAs reviewing, drafting and amending. • Funding recommendations of appropriate types of funding. • Preparing for Provisional Detailed Assessments. • Budgeting for both internal reporting and clients needs. STAGE TWO • Assisting with advice/budgeting for funders/insurers. • BTE/CFA/discounted CFA/success fee/ATE other the forms of funding. • Preparation of detailed interim schedules/on account bills to clients. STAGE THREE • Drafting N251s. • Defending or drafting Applications for Costs capping. • Interlocutory issues and advice upon drafting of Court Documents and Orders. • Drafting and advising upon Statements of Costs. • Costs Budgeting. STAGE FOUR • Fast, detailed and accurate Schedules of Costs to date (within 24 hours). • Estimates to Trial. STAGE FIVE • Pre Trial/Joint Settlement meeting/Round Table meeting. • Fast detailed and accurate of Costs to date. • Estimates to Trial and advice on reasonable settlement parameters. For further information, advice or to request a meeting please contact Peter Jones on 01480 463499 or pjones@rcostings.co.uk or visit our website for further information www.rcostings.co.uk
- 12. midlands Corporate/Banking solicitor – Birmingham The firm's Banking and Finance team is growing nationally, and following an upturn in work they are looking to appoint a further experienced banking lawyer to strengthen the team in Birmingham. The current team are involved with all aspects of banking law including acquisition finance and asset based finance, real estate finance as well as social housing finance. The team act for a variety of funders, discounters, lenders and registered providers with transactional panel positions you would expect of a national law firm. They also deal with general corporate banking and act for corporates and private equity houses. To succeed in this opportunity you will need to be between 3-5yrs pqe or equivalent and be confident and capable business developer, with evidence of client service excellence and innovative ways of thinking. As well as your fee-earning capabilities you will be highly driven and enthusiastic and really have the desire to take control of your own destiny and be part of developing a practice. This role offers superb career progression with the opportunity to gain unbeatable experience through quality of work and comes with an excellent remuneration package and benefits you would expect from a national firm. the south Commercial/it solicitor – southampton This UK leading firm currently seeks a mid level to senior commercial/IT lawyer to join their team in the firm's Southampton office. Originally seeking a talented and ambitious Ip/IT lawyer with a minimum of 6 years pqe experience, the firm will now consider 3+pqe. Responsibilities of the role will include drafting and negotiating a variety of commercial agreements including: complex Ip and IT agreements, advising on outsourcing transactions, major supply contracts and complex commercial projects. Data protection and privacy regulation experience will also be considered an advantage. This is an exciting opportunity for a motivated lawyer with good experience in a major National or London firm looking to progress their career. The firm will offer a very competitive salary package and a pleasant working environment in which to progress onwards to the top of the profession. nQ Pensions solicitor – manchester, milton Keynes, Reading, hampshire This Legal 500 National firm are seeking a newly qualified pensions Solicitor. This is an exceptional opportunity for a newly qualified solicitor looking to work for a prestigious national firm. positions are available in Manchester, Milton Keynes, Reading and Hampshire. The successful candidate will be involved in the full range of work undertaken by the firm's pensions team and will have completed a seat in a pensions department as part of their training contract. Residential Conveyancing solicitor/associate/Partner – Basingstoke An exciting opportunity has arisen within the UK's largest firm of conveyancing solicitors accredited under the Law Society’s Conveyancing quality Scheme, handling over 7000 properties bought and sold annually. As a result of the firm's continued success they are expanding into their Basingstoke office and have a fantastic new opportunity for a senior level residential conveyancer. This position involves working with and reporting to the Department Head/partner in developing a new team in Basingstoke to work alongside colleagues based in Northampton. The successful candidate will take responsibility for the recruitment, management and development of the team, ensuring the delivery of a high quality, cost effective and focused conveyancing service. To succeed in this opportunity you will be a qualified solicitor offering and able to demonstrate at least at least 10+ pqe in all aspects of residential conveyancing, experience in managing and running conveyancing teams in a case managed volume environment and the ability to manage and monitor/report on budgets against target and performance. This is an exceptional opportunity for an ambitious individual looking to take their career to the next stage and be involved in the further development of a hugely impressive department. the east Wills, trusts and Probate solicitor This Suffolk firm seeks an experienced Wills, Trust and probate practitioner for their busy private client department. They seek a proactive candidate capable of offering advice and appropriately drafting wills for a wide range of clients, acting for and on behalf of executors in probate matters and practiced in advising on and preparing LpA’s; a knowledge of the use and creation of trusts is essential. experience of the steps necessary to be taken in Court of protection matters would be preferred, failing which a keenness to develop knowledge and understanding of that area. The candidate will be expected to raise the profile of the department and show initiative in marketing both their area of specialism and the firm as a whole. There are genuine partnership prospects for a suitable candidate. Legal Recruitment Specialists Great opportunities available nationwide. www.rcclegal.co.uk t: 01480 493271 • e: nicola@rcclegal.co.uk