NOT ESTIMATED HIGHLY ENOUGH!!!

Representatives for both Claimant and Defendant should read this article, as whilst the article has been simplified both the case and the judgment handed down, the recent case of Harrington Scott Ltd v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWHC 294 (Ch) exemplifies the importance of getting your estimated hearing times correct.

In the above case, the Defendant’s application (dated 30th March 2021) for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim under CPR 3.4 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court was listed before a Master (heard by a Deputy Master) in December 2021.

The Deputy Master adjourned this application, holding that the time estimate of 12 hours and 30 minutes was insufficient.

The order made by the Deputy Master in December 2021 further recorded that the matter was suitable for hearing before a High Court judge and required 4 – 5 days with 1 day of reading time and 1 day to prepare a judgment.

The costs of the December 2021 hearing were reserved, and the matter was subsequently listed before a High Court Judge when the main action was struck out.

The High Court then went on to consider who should pay the costs of the adjourned December 2021 hearing where costs had been reserved.

The Defendant put forward an argument that as the Claimant had not objected to the time estimate included in their application, the Claimant should pay the costs.

The Claimant put forward arguments to support a claim that the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing in December 2021, before the Deputy Master should be borne by each of the parties.

Having heard the arguments in relation to liability for the costs of the adjourned hearing, HHJ Hodge KC was satisfied that it was unjust for the costs thrown away by the unfortunate adjournment of the hearing in December 2021 to fall to be borne by either of the parties to this litigation. Therefore, HHJ Hodge KC directed that the costs of the application should not include the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing before the Deputy Master in December 2021.

In essence the Court ordered that there be no order as to costs in relation to the December 2021 adjourned hearing.

Just because a party wins a case it does not mean costs should follow for the whole action.

In the above case the Defendant was successful, however, the High Court Judge, decided that the costs of an application that was adjourned due to an inappropriate time estimate should not be paid by the losing party.

Further comments of note made by the High Court Judge were that both parties should have given consideration to the adequacy of the time estimate and sought an extension to it in advance of the hearing before the Deputy Master, and that the Defendant should have considered seeking to confine the scope the application to matters which could have been determined within the time estimate.

The above decision really shows the importance of realistic time estimates being provided when filing applications.

How can PIC help?

Partners in Costs (PIC) are an expert team of costs lawyers and draftsmen committed to putting the profit back into legal costs. Established in 1996, Doncaster-based PIC are a claimant-only cost firm specialising in a tailor-made service agreement to suit the client.

PIC can be contacted on 01302 343666.

Nick Tomlinson, Costs Consultant

22.06.2023

VIEW OUR SERVICES+