![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2009] EWHC 651 (Ch) (30 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/651.html Cite as: [2009] 3 Costs LR 393, [2009] EWHC 651 (Ch), [2009] CP Rep 33 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT COSTS OFFICE
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
SITTING WITH ASSESSORS
(SENIOR COSTS JUDGE HURST AND MR CARTER)
____________________
![]() ![]() |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
Withers LLP |
Defendant |
____________________
Simon J Brown (instructed by Crane & Staples) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 16th & 21st January 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Morgan:
The procedural history
"No reasonable prospect of success. Paragraphs 40-44 give sufficient reasons as to why the Claimants relied on Defendant's estimate. Having decided that the Claimants relied on the Defendant's estimate I had to find a yardstick to enable me to decide what it was reasonable for the client to pay. My reasoning is set out in the judgment."
Satellite litigation
A further authority
The Costs Judge's findings as to the fact of reliance
The grounds of appeal as to the fact of reliance
The effect of reliance
"This has been an approach that has been adopted by Costs Judges over many years to enable them to answer the question in circumstances such as this, "what in all the circumstances is it reasonable for the client to be expected to pay?"
The Costs Judge's findings as to the effect of reliance
(i) cap Withers' costs for the relevant period at the amount of the estimate;
(ii) allow a percentage margin;
(iii) allow specific items over and above the estimate;
(iv) allow a lump sum;
(v) do nothing on the basis that the Defendant has given a satisfactory explanation for the difference between the costs billed and the estimate.
The grounds of appeal and cross-appeal as to the effect of reliance
"Given the guidance from the Court of Appeal that I have to reflect the costs estimate in the detailed assessment before going on to decide whether for other reasons there were elements of costs claimed which were unreasonably incurred or were unreasonable in amount, in my judgment the only practical method in this particular case of reflecting the cost estimate in the detailed assessment is by way of a percentage margin. This has been an approach that has been adopted by Costs Judges over many years to enable them to answer the question in circumstances such as this, "what in all the circumstances is it reasonable for the client to be expected to pay?" I consider an appropriate margin in this case to be 20%. This takes into account the acknowledgment by Mr Kenyon that there must be some slippage from the estimate, the additional interlocutory applications and some of the factors that were referred to in paragraphs 121 to 125 of the judgment of Morgan J."
The result
What should now be done?