|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Edinburgh v Fieldfisher LLP  EWHC 862 (QB) (08 April 2020)
Cite as:  EWHC 862 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| Mr Jason Edinburgh
Thomas Blackburn, Costs Draftsman (instructed by Croft Solicitors) for the Appellant
Ben Nethercott, Costs Lawyer (instructed by Fieldfisher LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 2 April 2020
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Chamberlain:
The decision under challenge
Submissions for Mr Edinburgh
"If a party wishes to vary that party's breakdown of costs, points of dispute or reply, an amended or supplementary document must be filed with the court and copies of it must be served on all other relevant parties. Permission is not required to vary a breakdown of costs, points of dispute or a reply but the court may disallow the variation or permit it only upon conditions, including conditions as to the payment of any costs caused or wasted by the variation."
Because permission is not required to vary points of dispute, the Master held that this was not a case where it was necessary for Mr Edinburgh to apply for relief from sanctions. It was not, therefore, necessary to apply the structured approach set out in Denton v T.H. White Ltd  1 WLR 3296. Mr Blackburn accepted, however, that para. 6.15 gave the Master a general discretion to disallow the variation, or permit it only upon conditions. He submitted that the question for me was whether his case, that she erred in the exercise of that discretion, had a real, as distinct from a fanciful, prospect of success: Swain v Hillman  1 All ER 91.
"(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders."
Of these, Mr Blackburn submitted the Master took into account only the last. Even looking just at that, the Master failed to recognise that this was a case where there had been no breach of rule, practice direction or order, since CPR 46PD para. 6.15 permitted the variation of points of dispute (albeit subject to a discretion to disallow).
Submissions for Field Fisher