header-logo header-logo

01 February 2007 / William Gibson
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , Costs , Fees
printer mail-detail

Mediate—or pay the price

A hike in court fees would encourage more mediation in costs disputes, reports William Gibson

There are rumours on the grapevine that the percentage-based court fee for costs assessments will return. Before April 1999 there was a major incentive for parties in litigation to settle the resulting costs claim by negotiation or mediation. Referring the matter to court for adjudication on a fair and reasonable costs figure attracted a taxing fee of 7.5% of the total value of the bill, half of which was paid in advance when the papers were lodged in court.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), surprisingly, abolished this lucrative source of revenue and replaced it with a flat fee, originally £160 in the High Court, currently £600. Suddenly bills in seven-figure amounts, which would have attracted an additional payment in excess of £75,000 to have a court assessment, could go through the same process for a nominal sum. Now, when even cases which settle before action can have costs-only proceedings and assessments, costs judges are again fully occupied. A

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