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 >> Boyd & Hutchinson v Joseph [2003] EWHC 9027 (Costs) (14 March 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9027.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9027 (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.7 of 2003

---

No.7 of 2003 (revised)

Boyd & Hutchinson v Jennifer Joseph
14 March 2003
Mr Justice Patten (Sitting With Assessors)

This is the latest round in protracted litigation between these parties, earlier instalments of which are reported in [1999] 1 Costs LR 74 and Unreported Appeal Decisions No.1 of 2001 respectively.

Mr Justice Jacob remitted the matter to a different Costs Judge (see Review No.1 of 2001). That Costs Judge ruled that the assessment he was concerned with was governed by the RSC rather than the CPR (reliance was placed upon Morris v Wiltshire & Woodspring District Council [2002] 1 Costs LR 167). Thus the less restrictive rules relating to solicitor litigants in person, which were in force prior to the introduction of the CPR, applied. Under the RSC, Miss Joseph, as a solicitor, was entitled to claim for her time at an hourly rate to be justified before the Costs Judge even if no financial loss was proved. Under the CPR a solicitor who is not acting for herself in her firm’s name is entitled to claim only an amount equal to the financial loss proved, or, if no financial loss is proved, an amount calculated at a rate of £9.25 per hour.

Dissatisfied with those decisions, and some others, Messrs Boyd & Hutchinson appealed and the appeal was heard by Mr Justice Patten. He decided that the costs which the Costs Judge was assessing were pursuant to an order made by Mr Justice Jacob on 16 January 2001, which date was post CPR, and therefore the hearing was an appeal and not a review and the CPR applied. Thus, the more restrictive provisions as to solicitor litigants in person were applicable. The matter was remitted to the Costs Judge to hear any evidence the parties wished to adduce on the issues of loss and hourly rate.

The full text of Mr Justice Patten’s decision ([2003] EWHC 413 (Ch)) is now to be found in the Costs Law Reports (2003 Service, Part 3, page 358) and on the website of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (www.bailii.org).