header-logo header-logo

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs spiral in £265 dispute

Costs

Three Court of Appeal judges have criticised a case involving a dispute over £265, which cost more than £100,000 in lawyer’s fees. Peakman v Linbrooke Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1239, was heard over just eight days.

The court awarded the claimant David Peakman, a self-employed cable jointer, £1,145, which was less than he was claiming, and the defendant Linbrooke Services, a telecommunications company, £1,410 plus interest. The judgments were to be satisfied by the payment of £265 plus interest by Peakman to Linbrooke.

However, Peakman sought to appeal against the judge’s decision to make no order of costs.

Permission to appeal was granted. While the court would be reluctant to involve itself in the order for costs, it was arguable that an injustice had been done to Peakman.

In his judgment, Lord Justice Goldring says: “Relative to the sums involved the costs are enormous. Linbrooke’s costs below were estimated to be £32,700 before the costs of an eight day trial. Mr. Peakman’s costs were some £18,000. According to the Statement of Costs supplied to this court Mr Peakman’s costs of his appeal (taking into account the uplift on a conditional fee agreement) amount to £30,481.80.

“This is deeply troubling, not only for this case but as a reflection of the least satisfactory aspect of our civil justice system.”

Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll