header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009 / Chris Lethem
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

If the cap fits

Chris Lethem looks at the effect of new cost capping rules

In Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199, [2007] All ER (D) 205 (Mar) the court declined to give guidance to practitioners as to the parameters and the practice of costs capping, preferring to refer the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Committee. That committee has accepted the challenge and now produced rules to govern costs capping (See r 9 et seq Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2008—applicable from 6 April 2009), introducing a new CPR 44.18–20).

Costs capping orders will only apply to “future costs”. By r 44.18(2) future costs are defined as costs incurred in respect of work done after the date of the costs capping order but excluding the amount of any additional liability. Two important elements come out of this definition. First there can be no attempt to reduce costs already incurred, in other words the order cannot be retrospective. Thus the new rule mirrors cases such as Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2503 (QB), [2006] All

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll