header-logo header-logo

06 January 2021
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Lockdown no excuse for costs breach

The impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown was not a strong enough excuse to justify missing a deadline on costs, a judge has held
The defendant, in Masten v London Britannia Hotel [2020] EWHC B31 (Costs), was due to pay the claimant’s costs after a personal injury action settled for about US$450,000 (£325,000). The parties agreed that any points of dispute must be made by 28 February 2020. However, the defendant missed the deadline.

The claimant filed a default costs certificate (DCC) for £364,000 in mid-June. However, the defendant did not apply to set aside the bill for another month and, due to technical difficulties, this was initially done via paper and therefore rejected. Consequently, the defendant’s application was not served until mid-August.

The defendant’s costs draftsman, Philip Gaskell, director, QM Legal Costs Solutions, explained he experienced a surge in workload in January and February. He transferred work to colleagues but there was a reallocation error in the Masten case. He believed the error would have come to light but for the COVID-19 lockdown on 17 March when his small business ‘had to cope with moving from having 5% of work undertaken by staff working from home to 95%. That was particularly difficult because 70% of the files worked on were paper files.’ Gaskell and his wife also had childcare duties for an extra three and a half days a week.

Master Leonard declined to grant relief.

Delivering his judgment, he said: ‘This case was, on Mr Gaskell's evidence, the only case handled by QM Costs on which default had arisen and he had been given fair warning that application would be made for a DCC.

‘One would expect therefore that this case would have been treated as exceptionally urgent…Instead, the case was allowed to go entirely adrift. Lockdown then exacerbated the effect of failures that had already occurred.’

Issue: 7915 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll