header-logo header-logo

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

Good news for costs claimants

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

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