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 >> Homes Assured Corporation Plc, Re The Official Receiver v Dobson & Ors [2001] EWHC 9016 (Costs) (28 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2001/9016.html
Cite as: [2001] EWHC 9016 (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.15 of 2001

Re: Homes Assured Corporation Plc The Official Receiver v Dobson & Ors; Sampson & Kohlbacher v Wilson
28 November 2001
Mr Justice Park sitting with Assessors

In these two related appeals heard together the learned Judge dealt with the appropriate penalty to apply when Regulation 109 of the Legal Aid (General) Regulations was invoked. In the first case there had been a delay of 4 years between the conclusion of the proceedings and the notice of commencement of the assessment proceedings, which the Deputy Costs Judge had held to be totally unreasonable, so that he allowed no profit costs whatsoever.

In a lengthy and careful judgment the learned Judge reviewed the relevant authorities, and concluded that a complete disallowance of the solicitors’ profit costs was not an appropriate remedy, bearing in mind that the Legal Services Commission had not suffered any prejudice, and indeed the only prejudice suffered might have been that of the claimants’ solicitors. The Judge did not feel it appropriate to lay down any rule in relation to such applications, but, on the facts of this case where the bill was some £30,000, he felt that a 30% deduction from the bill was appropriate. In the second case the Costs Judge had taken an adverse view of the claimants solicitors conduct, which the learned Judge did not consider to have been correct, but in that case he did not feel that he had sufficient information to come to a final decision, and therefore remitted the matter to the Costs Judge for reconsideration in the light of his judgment.