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 >> Lloyds TSB v Lampert [2003] EWHC 9023 (Costs) (20 February 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9023.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9023 (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.3 of 2003

---

Lloyds TSB v Lampert
20 February 2003
Mr Justice Peter Smith (Sitting With Assessors)

This appeal arose from a two day detailed assessment before an experienced Deputy Costs Judge of costs payable by the defendants to the claimant following a series of bitter disputes over property, the last of which resulted in a Chancery Master awarding the claimant £32,500.

The Deputy Costs Judge failed to take account of the guidance given by Lord Woolf LCJ in Lownds v Home Office as to proportionality. The defendants alleged that the claim for costs of £102,000 in relation to an award of £32,500 was disproportionate, but largely because Lownds was not cited to the Deputy District Judge he took no account of it. The heart of the decision lies in paragraph 24 of the Judge’s judgment, which reads as follows:

"Nevertheless, we are forced to conclude that this is a procedural irregularity of a serious nature. It is clear from the judgment that the DCJ did have in mind proportionality on an individual basis, but it is by no means clear that he considered proportionality on a global basis at the outset as required by the Lownds case. It is therefore possible that his assessments may not have been done on a necessity basis prior to considering its reasonableness as required by paragraph 31 of the judgment in Lownds."

Accordingly the matter was remitted to the same Deputy Costs Judge to reconsider in the light of the Lownds decision.

However the Judge ordered the successful defendant to pay the costs of the appeal because he had not taken advantage of the possibility of asking the Deputy Costs Judge to clarify his judgment rather than appealing. As he said in paragraph 25 of his judgment:

"It cannot be right in our view that the second defendant can create a procedural irregularity (albeit through her own representatives), take advantage of that on appeal, which she is entitled to do, without a costs consequence visiting her."