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 >> Crosbie v Munroe [2003] EWHC 9028 (Costs) (14 March 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9028.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9028 (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.8 of 2003

---

Crosbie v Munroe
14 March 2003
Court of Appeal, Schiemann, Brooke & Jonathan Parker LJJ

The parties were involved in a road traffic accident in July 2000, the subsequent claim by the claimant being settled for a little over £1,500 on 8 January 2001. Thereafter his solicitors served a bill of costs seeking payment of £4,089.25. Agreement not being forthcoming the solicitors started costs only proceedings pursuant to CPR 44.12A under Part 8, their claim in those proceedings being for £5,310.84.

On 16 January 2002 the defendants solicitors made an offer under CPR 47.19 in these terms:

"We would be willing to offer you the all inclusive sum of £2,650 in respect of your profit costs, disbursements, VAT and interest (your entitlement to which is not admitted) in order to seek an amicable conclusion. Our offer is pursuant to CPR 47.19 and remains open for 21 days from the date of this letter."

On 5 February an order was made in the Part 8 proceedings for a detailed assessment and the following day the claimants solicitors wrote saying:

"Having reviewed the file we accept your Part 47.19 offer of £2,650.

The only outstanding issue is the costs of the Part 8 proceedings details of which we will let you have shortly."

There is a further letter the following day offering without prejudice to settle the Part 8 proceedings costs for £1,022.64, and after giving a breakdown added:

"Please let us have your proposals within the course of the next 14 days failing which we will apply our notice for summary assessment of the Part 8 costs."

The defendant’s solicitors replied on 13 February in a letter headed "without prejudice save as to the costs of the summary or detailed assessment of Part 8 costs". In that letter they made a counter offer for the Part 8 costs pursuant to CPR 47.19 which was not accepted, and the dispute then came before a Deputy District Judge on 8 March 2002.

She decided that the Part 47.19 offer made on 16 January included the costs of the costs only proceedings, holding that the correspondence indicated a conclusive final and total offer to settle the matter, and she therefore disallowed any costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Circuit Judge upheld the District Judge, and the matter was then taken to the Court of Appeal.

In a very full judgment Lord Justice Brooke reviewed the relevant parts of the CPR and the cases, explaining that the problem had arisen because of the superimposition of costs only proceedings onto the existing CPR framework.

The court rejected the submission by the defendant that the expression in CPR 47.19 "the proceedings which give rise to the assessment proceedings" could only refer to the costs only proceedings, since there were no other proceedings in this case, but following paragraphs 54 to 55 in Callery v Gray (No.1) [2001] 1 WLR 2112 the court held that the section referred to a liability for the costs which would have been recoverable in the proceedings had the proceedings commenced, and accordingly the District and Circuit Judges had been wrong to disallow the claimant’s additional claim for the costs of the costs only proceedings, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.