England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Joseph v Boyd & Hutchinson (No.2) [2001] EWHC 9002 (Costs) (16 January 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2001/9002.html
Cite as: [2001] EWHC 9002 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 

 No.1 of 2001

Joseph v Boyd & Hutchinson (No.2)
16 January 2001
Mr Justice Jacob sitting with Assessors

This is one of the last of the "old" Review cases which will come before the courts antedating as it does the CPR. The Defendant Solicitors had represented the Claimant and her sister in their claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a traffic accident in 1989. The Claimant is almost uniquely qualified, in that she has been a barrister, is a solicitor and is also a fully qualified costs draftsperson.

After those proceedings were successful the Defendants prepared a bill for agreement with the insurers, which claimed a lower hourly rate than that subsequently sought in the bills delivered to the Claimant and her sister. Those costs were agreed and paid, but problems arose over accounting to the Claimant (her sister had assigned all her rights to the Claimant) and accordingly the Claimant, in 1996, started Chancery proceedings for an account. Within those proceedings the Chancery Master directed taxation of the Solicitor’s bill, and this took place over a protracted period, between 1996 and 1999, some of the earlier history being dealt with in Review No.1 of 1999.

On this Review a number of points were raised. Firstly, it was contended by the Defendants that the Claimant was a difficult client who had to be handled with special care because of her qualifications, a view which the Judge on appeal rejected.

Secondly, the evidence before the Costs Judge was that the client care letter justifying the higher hourly rate had never been communicated to the Claimant’s sister, and whilst the Costs Judge could not be satisfied that it had been sent to the Claimant, he nevertheless felt that the hourly rates claimed were justified. The Judge disagreed, partly on the basis that the inter partes bill in the same matter had been approved at a lower rate, and also because the Claimant, when drafting bills for the Defendants, in her capacity of a costs draftsperson, had done so at lower hourly rates.

The Judge also rejected the Costs Judge’s view that the interlocutory uplift for conferences etc should be 50% rather than 35%.

Finally the Judge felt that the Claimant should recover her costs of the Review on the indemnity basis because of the conduct of the Defendants in not keeping the Claimant fully informed of what was happening in her name (notably not notifying her that a Calderbank offer had been made in respect of the inter partes costs).

Some of the evidence had not been before the Costs Judge, but nevertheless the Judge felt that it was an appropriate case to direct that the Defendants should pay costs on the indemnity basis, and the matter was remitted to a different Costs Judge for final resolution.