Jersey Unreported Judgments

Costs

[2023]JRC063

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 April 2023

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Plaintiffs.

Advocate A. D. Hoy for the Defendant.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        In my judgment dated 10 January 2023 in this case, Dix and Ors v Sigma Group Limited [2023] JRC 004, I indicated I would make a summary assessment of the costs of the costs application.  The Plaintiffs were awarded two-thirds of those costs, calculated on the standard basis.  I have received a bill of costs from Advocate Jones with supporting lines setting out in broad detail the work that was done and is covered by the claim.  In summary, the factor A rates claimed are in respect of Advocates Boothman and Jones at £275 per hour and in respect of Ms Rebecca Clackett, a legal assistant with a law degree at an hourly rate of £175.  Those rates are in accordance with the Royal Court Practice Direction on the Taxation of Costs RC20/03.

2.        The total claimed under factor A is £4,725.  The claim is for a factor B rate at 30%, making a total of £6,142.50.  It appears from the certified bill of costs that the total amount billed to the client is £5,190.  The indemnity principle would thus be engaged if I were otherwise minded to make an order at factor A plus factor B as claimed, despite the fact that only two thirds of those costs actually billed has been awarded.  The maximum payable is thus two thirds of £5,190, namely £3,460.

3.        However, this is academic because the first question is whether or not any factor B rate should be permitted and if so at what rate.  In my judgment, this is a case where no factor B rate should be allowed.  I have reached that conclusion because:

(i)        I am dealing with the costs of a costs application, an exercise to be conducted on the papers which should therefore be particularly straightforward.

(ii)       The total costs billed to the client were in the sum of £5,190, but even if one looks at the total claim of factor A plus factor B, the total is only £6,142.50.  Claims for this amount of money should not generate factor B costs at 30%.

4.        Thus I have allowed 0% for factor B.  While I do not lay down any absolute principle that a claim for this amount of money should not give rise to a factor B calculation, that is not an inappropriate starting point and it is emphasised in this case by the extent of the costs which have been charged and awarded so far.  Neither the First Plaintiff nor the Defendant will come out of this litigation with any enormous sense of satisfaction.  The Defendant has lost significantly.  The First Plaintiff will not have regained all that he has lost, albeit he has certainly improved his position.

5.        I consider that no factor B rate ought to be allowed.  If that leads to any discussion between the Plaintiffs and Preston Law, my own view is that the loss should not be borne by the First Plaintiff but by either the Second Plaintiff, who has gained the most, or by the lawyers who, after all, will have suffered no loss in the sense that factor A rates are at least intended in theory to cover all their base costs including notional remuneration of the partners in the business.

6.        Pursuant therefore to paragraph 27 of my judgment of 10 January 2023, I order the Defendant to pay this summary assessment of the costs of the costs application in the sum of £3,150 (i.e. two-thirds of £4,725).  This sum is to be paid within twenty-eight days of this judgment.

Authorities

Dix and Ors v Sigma Group Limited [2023] JRC 004.