header-logo header-logo

Good news for costs claimants

22 February 2012
Issue: 7502 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Costs run from date of costs order where claimant is CFA-funded

Costs run from the date of the costs order even where the claimant is funded by a conditional fee agreement (CFA) and not from the date the sum is formally agreed, the Court of Appeal ruled last week.

In Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 137, the parties were divided over the question of the date from which interest on costs should run on an award of costs to the claimant, and whether the fact the claimant was funded by a CFA gave the judge reason to order otherwise.

The defendant argued that interest should run from the later date on which the sum of the costs was formally agreed.

The court held in favour of the claimants, finding that part of CPR 40.8 is ultra vires in the county court and, until that discrepancy is resolved, a judge in the county court has no discretion to order otherwise. In the county court and the High Court, interest runs from the date of the costs order.
The court also held that the fact the claimant is on a CFA and is therefore not out-of-pocket as a result of the case is not a good reason to order otherwise.

Writing in the March issue of the Civil Costs Newsletter, Roger Mallalieu of 4 New Square, who represented the claimant, says: “The judgment will be good news for claimant solicitors.

“Interest has long provided an annual source of income and has been part of the calculations on which many financial models have been based. In these straitened times, where solicitors acting on CFAs are already facing many changes and strains on their business models, it would have been sorely missed.”

Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, concluded his judgment by criticising the fact it costs the claimant nearly £75,000 to pursue a “relatively minor and straightforward” personal injury case for £12,750 damages.

“Unless this is an exceptional case, the fact that, without even incurring the cost of a trial, it cost the claimant nearly six times as much to pursue the claim as it was actually worth suggests that something is out of kilter in at least some parts of the civil justice system,” he said.

Simcoe was the appeal against Judge Stewart QC’s judgment in Gray v Toner at Liverpool County Court in November 2010.

Issue: 7502 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll