6 - Case Management and Costs Flashcards
What are the main civil procedure rules related to costs?
- CPR 44.2-44.4 & 44.7 (in relation to costs generally)
- 44 PD 6.1-6.2 (in relation to the standards and indemnity bases).
Why are costs an important consideration in litigation?
Not only is the expense of litigation very significant, but the court’s power to order a party to pay an opponents costs is used to influence parties’ behaviour.
What is the court’s jurisdiction to order costs?
The court has full power to determine by whom and to what extent costs of proceedings are to be paid.
This includes:
- Costs prior to proceedings, such as when complying with a pre-action protocol.
- Costs spent negotiating in connection with pending litigation.
The court may consider making a costs order at the end of any interim hearing as well as at the end of a trial.
If the judge does not make an order as to costs (or gives an order that there is “no order as to costs”), each party will simply pay its own costs.
What are the different types of litigation costs?
The types of litigation costs most commonly encountered in practice are:
Solicitor-client costs: Costs payable by the client to the solicitor under the contract of retainer.
Inter-party costs: The costs awarded by the court which one party has to pay the other party.
Non-party costs: Costs awarded against a non-party, such as a ‘funder’ who is financing the litigation.
What are solicitor-client costs?
Solicitor-client costs refer to the costs a client is responsible for paying to their solicitor under the retainer contract.
Even if a party is successful in litigation, there may still be a shortfall between the costs recovered from the other party and the sum the client must pay their solicitor, as recorded on the solicitor’s bill.
The indemnity principle dictates that a party cannot recover more than their liability to their own solicitor.
What are inter-party costs?
Inter-party costs refer to the actual amount of costs one party is ordered to pay another following court proceedings.
These costs are typically awarded after the case has been decided, but the court retains discretion in how much is awarded.
What are non-party costs?
Non-party costs involve the court’s power to award costs against a person not directly involved in the proceedings, such as a funder.
Principles applied by the court for awarding non-party costs include:
- Such orders are “exceptional” but can be made if it is just to do so.
- Where the non-party both funds and substantially controls or benefits from the proceedings, justice usually requires that they pay the successful party’s costs if the proceedings fail.
What is the court’s discretion regarding costs, and what is the general rule?
When determining costs, the court has discretion over:
- Whether costs are payable by one party to another.
- The amount of costs payable.
- When the costs are to be paid.
The general rule is that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs (CPR 44.2(2)(a)).
However, the court can depart from this rule and take factors such as conduct and success on only some issues into account when making a costs order.
What is the general rule for determining whether costs are payable by one party to another?
The general rule is that the losing party pays the winning party’s costs.
However, the court has full discretion to depart from this rule based on several factors, including:
- The conduct of the parties, including engagement in ADR and settlement offers.
Success on only certain issues or parts of the claim.
Example: Unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR can impact the costs award, although a finding of unreasonable refusal does not automatically result in a costs penalty.
What is the basis of assessment for costs (CPR 44.3)?
When making a costs order, the court specifies the basis of assessment, which can be either:
Standard basis: The court will allow costs which are proportionately and reasonably incurred and are proportionate and reasonable in amount. Any doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party.
Indemnity basis: The court will allow costs that have been reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount. Any doubt is resolved in favour of the receiving party.
In either case, costs that have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount will not be allowed.
Standard basis: Typically, only around 60% of the costs will be recoverable.
Indemnity basis: Between 70-80% of the costs may be recoverable.
In neither scenario will a party likely recover 100% of its costs.
Indemnity costs are awarded where a party’s conduct warrants disapproval.
What is meant by “proportionate” in terms of recoverable costs?
Proportionate costs must bear a reasonable relationship to specific criteria under CPR 44.3(5), including:
- The sums in issue in the proceedings.
- The value of non-monetary relief sought.
- The complexity of the litigation.
- Additional work caused by the paying party’s conduct.
- Any wider factors, such as reputation or public importance.
Example: In a £50,000 dispute, legal costs of £60,000 might be deemed disproportionate, though large costs do not automatically mean they are disproportionate.
What factors does the court take into account when deciding the amount of costs?
The court considers all circumstances, including:
- The conduct of the parties.
- The complexity of the case.
- The location and circumstances in which the work was done.
- The receiving party’s last approved or agreed budget (CPR 44.4(3)).
These factors help the court assess the actual amount of costs after determining whether one party should pay the other’s costs.
What is the time frame for complying with an order for costs?
Unless otherwise specified, a party must comply with a costs order within 14 days of either:
- The date of the judgment or order if the amount is specified.
- The date of the certificate stating the amount of costs if determined later.
The process of deciding costs at a later time is called detailed assessment (CPR 44.7).
What is Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS)?
QOCS is the costs regime for claims involving personal injury or death (CPR 44.13).
It restricts the defendant’s ability to enforce a costs order against the claimant, providing protection for claimants in such cases.
What is costs management?
Costs management relates to the court’s power to control costs, including by making costs orders at the end of interim hearings or trials.
It is also part of the court’s wider costs management regime, which is detailed in separate elements on costs management procedures.
Provide a summary overview of costs.
- The court has the power to determine who should pay the cost of and the costs incidental to litigation proceedings.
- There are different types of litigation costs that you will come across in practice including: solicitor-client costs, inter-party costs and non-party costs
- The general rule on costs recovery is that the loser pays the winners costs (CPR 44.2(2)(a).
- There are two bases for assessing how costs should be calculated: the standard and indemnity basis, the latter leading to an award of a greater proportion of costs.
- Conduct is a critical factor for the court when exercising its discretion as to a) what costs order to make (CPR 44.2(1)) and b) the amount of those costs (CPR 44.4(3)).
What are the main CPR rules supporting costs procedure?
The main CPR that support the content of this element are:
- CPR 45: In relation to fixed costs.
- CPR 44.6: In relation to assessment generally.
- 44 PD 8-9: In relation to assessment generally and fixed costs.
- CPR 47: In relation to detailed assessment.
- 47 PD: In relation to detailed assessment.
What are fixed costs in the fast track and intermediate track, how do they apply, and what discretion do judges maintain in relation to this?
What are fixed costs?
Having decided that one party should pay the other party’s costs, the court has to decide ‘how much’. However, sometimes that ‘how much’ question has a simple answer – the amount is fixed by the rules. These are called ‘fixed costs’ (CPR 45).
From 1 October 2023, fixed costs now apply to all small claims (CPR 27.14), fast and intermediate track cases (section VI and VII CPR 45).
If the court awards fixed costs for that item, the sum awarded will be as set out in the CPR, unless the court orders otherwise
Fast track fixed costs:
There are four complexity bands (1 to 4 in ascending order of complexity) with associated grids of costs for the stages of a claim (Table 12 in PD 45) that determine the amount of costs that can be claimed from the other party in the event that a costs order is made.
The amount of costs depends on:
- The complexity band; and
- The stage at which the case concludes.
Intermediate track fixed costs:
There are also four complexity bands (1 to 4 in ascending order of complexity) with associated grids of the costs for the stages of the claim (Table 14 in PD 45).
The stages of the claim are more extensive than for the fast track.
Parties’ agreement on complexity bands:
The parties are required to state on the directions questionnaire, either:
- The agreed complexity band; or
- If there is a dispute, the complexity band considered appropriate by each party.
Judges’ discretion:
Judges retain the discretion to allocate more complex cases valued at under £100,000 to the multi-track so that complex cases will not be inappropriately captured by the extended fixed recoverable costs regime.
What are the cost consequences of an unaccepted Part 36 offer under the fixed recoverable costs regime?
Part 36 (offers to settle) and fixed recoverable costs:
The fixed costs regime introduced a change to Part 36.
When the claim is subject to the fixed recoverable costs regime, instead of indemnity costs, the additional costs awarded for a claimant’s unaccepted Part 36 offer will be an amount equivalent to 35% of the difference between:
- The fixed costs at the time the relevant period expires; and
- The fixed costs at the date of judgment.
What are assessed costs and how do they differ from fixed costs?
Assessed costs: The court determines the amount payable through a process of assessment, which can be either summary or detailed.
- Summary assessment: Costs are determined immediately at the end of a hearing.
- Detailed assessment: A more complex process where costs are thoroughly examined and assessed in detail.
In contrast, fixed costs are predetermined amounts based on:
- The complexity band.
- The stage of the claim’s conclusion, with no need for a detailed assessment.
What is summary assessment of costs and when is it used?
Summary assessment: The court determines the amount payable by way of costs immediately at the end of a hearing.
To enable the court to carry out a summary assessment:
- Parties must prepare statements of costs (preferably on the standard form N260, 44 PD 1.2) and file and serve them on each other not less than 24 hours before the hearing (44 PD 9.5(4)(b)).
- The court reviews these cost statements in a relatively broad brush manner, hears the parties’ short submissions, and then decides the payable amount.
Use of summary assessment: The court should use this procedure unless there is good reason not to:
- In fast track cases, at the end of the trial (where the costs of the entire case are assessed).
- At the end of a hearing of an interim application or matter, which has not lasted more than a day (where usually only the costs of the interim application are assessed).
What is the detailed assessment of costs and how is it carried out?
Detailed assessment: A more complex procedure for determining the amount of costs payable.
The procedure involves:
- The court orders detailed assessment if the parties cannot agree on costs. At this point, the court does not set a figure on the amount of costs.
- The receiving party serves a notice of commencement and a copy of the bill of costs (which is more detailed than the summary assessment statement) on the paying party.
- The paying party then serves points of dispute regarding any item in the bill of costs within 21 days of receiving the notice.
- If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the receiving party requests a detailed assessment hearing, where a costs officer determines the amount payable.
How do parties’ budgets influence the amount of costs payable?
The parties’ respective budgets and the costs management procedure influence how the court considers costs orders.
These budgets can affect the assessment of costs, even if a costs management order was not made.
Provide a summary of the procedural aspects of the assessment of costs.
- Fixed costs are specific amounts that are recoverable by one party from another in certain circumstances in litigation; assessed costs are those where the court will need to be involved with the decision as to the amount payable (unless the parties agree the amount).
- Assessed costs requires there to be either a summary assessment or detailed assessment carried out by the court prior to a costs order being made.
- Summary assessment is used in fast track proceedings and in other cases where a hearing has lasted no more than a day (e.g., interim applications).
- Detailed assessment is the appropriate option in most other cases where costs fall to be assessed.
Which CPR rules support the topic of interim costs?
- 44 PD 4.2
What is the effect of a “Costs in any event” order?
The party in whose favour this order is made is awarded its costs of the interim hearing from the other party, regardless of who eventually wins at trial.
This means the costs are payable immediately and do not depend on the outcome of the main case.
What are the effects of a “Costs in the case” order and a “Costs Reversed” order?
Costs in the case order:
- The party who eventually wins at trial (usually the successful party) will recover its costs of the interim hearing from the other party.
- This is linked to the final outcome, so the party that wins the trial will recover the costs of the interim application as part of the overall costs order made at trial.
Costs Reserved order
- The decision about who pays the costs of the interim hearing is deferred to a later point, usually at trial.
- If no decision is made later, the costs will be in the case, meaning that the party who wins at trial will recover the costs of the interim hearing. This deferral allows for further consideration based on the case outcome.
What is the effect of a “Claimant’s costs in the case” or “Defendant’s costs in the case” order?
Claimant’s costs in the case:
- If the claimant is successful at trial and is awarded costs, they will be able to recover their costs of the interim application as part of the overall costs order.
- If the defendant is awarded costs at trial, the claimant will not have to pay the defendant’s costs of the interim application.
Defendant’s costs in the case:
- The same principles apply but in reverse.
- If the defendant wins at trial, they will recover their costs of the interim application, and if the claimant wins, the defendant will not have to pay the claimant’s interim costs.
What is the effect of a “Costs thrown away” order?
If a judgment or order is set aside, the party in whose favour the costs order is made is entitled to recover the costs incurred as a result of the judgment or order being set aside.
These costs may include:
- Hearing costs, including preparation and attendance at both the hearing where the original order was made and the hearing where the order was set aside.
The rationale behind this is that the judgment or order should not have been made, and the party at fault is required to pay for the costs involved in both making and setting aside the order.
What is the effect of a “Costs of and caused by” order?
A party is required to pay the costs resulting from something that party has done.
For example, if a claimant amends its particulars of claim, the defendant may incur additional costs as a direct result of this amendment. In this situation, the costs of and caused by the amendment would be payable by the claimant to cover the defendant’s additional expenses.
What is the effect of a “Costs here and below” order?
The party in whose favour the costs order is made is entitled to recover not only their costs in the current proceedings but also their costs in any lower court where previous proceedings took place.
For example, in the case of an appeal from a Divisional Court, the party may recover costs incurred in that Divisional Court but not any costs incurred in a court below the Divisional Court.
What is the effect of a “No order for costs” (or if no order is made) order?
In cases where no order for costs is made, each party will bear their own costs of the hearing.
This means neither party is entitled to recover costs from the other, and each must pay their own legal expenses for the interim application or hearing.
What are examples of when certain interim costs orders might be made?
Costs in any event:
Example: A judge grants a defendant’s application to extend the time for serving its defence due to financial difficulties and related employment issues, finding in the defendant’s favour. The judge orders costs in any event, as the defendant was justified in making the application.
Costs in the case:
Example: The judge allows the extension but has sympathy for both parties’ positions. Rather than ordering costs immediately, the judge links the costs of the interim application to the final hearing. Whoever wins at trial will recover the costs in the case, including those of the interim application.
No order as to costs:
Example: The judge allows a short extension but is critical of both parties’ conduct. The judge decides that neither party is deserving of recovering their costs for the application, so no order as to costs is made. Each party bears its own costs.
Provide a summary of the most common types of interim costs order.
There are certain types of interim costs orders that can be made following the hearing of an interim application.
The most common are:
- Costs in any event - the party in whose favour this order is made is awarded his costs of the interim hearing.
- Costs in the case - the party who eventually gets its costs at trial (usually the winner) will recover its costs of the interim hearing from the other party.
- Costs reserved - the decision about who pays the costs of the interim hearing is put off to a later occasion.
What are the main CPR rules that support the topic of case management powers and striking out?
- CPR 3.1 to 3.5
- 3A PD
What are the court’s general case management powers?
The court has a wide range of powers to manage cases and control costs under CPR 3.1(2).
Examples of these powers include:
- Extending or shortening the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction, or court order.
- Adjourning hearings or bringing them forward.
- Requiring a party or their legal representative to attend court.
- Staying the whole or part of the proceedings or judgment, either generally or until a specified event occurs.
- Ordering any party to file and serve a costs budget.
The court also has a general provision under CPR 3.1(2)(m) that allows it to take any other step or make any order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective.
What is the court’s power to make orders of its own initiative?
Under CPR 3.3, the court has the power to make an order of its own initiative, even if no application has been made by either party.
This allows the court to provide new directions or terminate a case without either party taking a step.
If the court makes an order of its own initiative without a hearing and without giving the parties the chance to make representations:
- The order must include a statement that the parties have the right to apply to set aside, stay, or vary the order.
- If no specific period is mentioned in the order, the parties must make any application to set aside, stay, or vary the order within seven days from the date the order was served on the party making the application.
What is strike out, and what are the court’s powers to strike out?
Strike out involves the deletion of written material from a statement of case so that it cannot be relied upon in the proceedings by any party.
It can extend to the deletion of the entire statement of case, meaning the case may effectively be over.
Strike out is particularly used to address cases that are poorly drafted or constitute an abuse of process.
The court’s power to strike out is found in CPR 3.4 and can be exercised either on the court’s own initiative or upon the application of a party.
- Applications to strike out should be made as soon as possible, ideally before allocation.
- When the court strikes out of its own initiative, it often does so around the allocation/case management stage, when the court first engages with the substance of the dispute.
Strike out is used sparingly, as there are often better ways to handle defective cases, such as ordering amendments or imposing sanctions for failure to comply with court orders.
What is the difference between strike out and summary judgment?
Strike out (under CPR 3.4) focuses on the statement of case itself and targets cases that do not constitute a legally recognisable claim or defence.
- It applies where the case, as pleaded, is weak from a legal standpoint. Either duty, breach, causation, or loss are missing.
Summary judgment (under CPR 24) focuses on the facts of the case, allowing the court to dismiss a case if there is no real prospect of success, even if the statement of case is correctly pleaded.
- Summary judgment applies to cases that are weak in their factual basis, regardless of the legal sufficiency of the pleadings.
There is considerable overlap between the two, and applications are often made for both strike out and summary judgment in the alternative, depending on the issues in the case.
What is the difference between strike out and default judgment?
Default judgment (under CPR 12) arises when the defendant fails to respond to a claim, either by not filing an acknowledgment of service or failing to submit a defence within the required time limits.
- It is a procedural tool and does not involve the court assessing the merits of the case.
- Default judgment is available simply because the defendant has not complied with the procedural rules, and the claimant can apply for judgment without any consideration of the substantive issues.
Strike out, on the other hand, is not merely procedural and involves a more substantive review of the statement of case to determine if it discloses a claim or defence that can proceed in law.