Civil Liberties, Public Law, Judicial Review

improving the world we live in

It’s not often easy. Resources can be limited and every penny counts.

That’s why it’s vital to get proper costs support from an experienced costs specialist who understands your field and will maximise your costs recovery, helping you to continue the fight for those who need it.

Case Study

Client: Top Tier Specialist Civil Liberties and Public Law Firm

Type of case: High Profile Public Law Judicial Review

Brief: To prepare a Bill of Costs and handle costs recovery through to settlement or assessment

Time to Complete: Settlement achieved within 6 months of instruction

Result: 83% recovery on high six-figure Bill of Costs in spite of serious costs challenges

The Matter

Our solicitor client was successful in a high-profile judicial review challenge to a significant cut introduced by the government. The case was widely reported in the national press.

The Costs Issues

The claim was a novel one which concerned a large amount of public expenditure and was pursued to a successful conclusion following a rolled-up hearing, in spite of the Defendant’s procedural defaults and drip-feeding of critical disclosure. As a result of the difficulty and complexity of the case, the costs incurred were unusually high and required robust justification. The Claimant had funded the case itself, and it was imperative to achieve a good costs recovery for it and for its stakeholders.

Additionally, challenges were encountered as to the recoverability of the costs of expert witnesses, some of whose evidence had been found to be inadmissible, and to the instruction of pre-eminent leading counsel and the level of their fees.

Our Approach

Upon receipt of the papers we prepared a comprehensive Bill of Costs with a detailed narrative setting out the complexity and novelty of the case and illustrating the failings in the Defendant’s conduct, and how these impacted upon the work required to be done by the Claimant’s representatives. We provided a thorough letter of advice to accompany the Bill at no additional charge, addressing the objections the Defendant was likely to raise. A significant sum had been paid on account of the costs and we recommended that a further substantial payment on account be requested when the Bill was served. Our client was very pleased with the draft and, after incorporating their contributions to the narrative, we served the Bill under Notice of Commencement. Agreement to pay a further, six-figure payment on account of costs was secured within a week of service of the Bill.

We discussed the appropriate strategy to adopt in relation to the costs recovery with our client and agreed that we should seek to settle the matter by means of a Joint Settlement Meeting, with a view to achieving a competitive settlement without the delay and expense of an assessment. In accordance with this strategy, when the Defendant requested our agreement to extend time for service of the Points of Dispute, we made the extension conditional upon their agreement to a JSM.

The Defendant subsequently served Points of Dispute, arguing, inter alia, that the costs were disproportionate, that the hourly rates charged by leading counsel and instructing solicitors were excessive and that the majority of the experts’ fees claimed should be disallowed. An offer was made by the Defendant equating to a 63% recovery on the Bill of Costs.

Despite its earlier agreement to a JSM, the Defendant now stated that it no longer considered the JSM to be necessary and that telephone discussions were sufficient. We advised our client upon these developments and it was agreed that we would maintain the need for the agreed JSM but would put forward a counter-offer.

As our counter-offer was not accepted the JSM went ahead. We prepared Without Prejudice responses to the Points of Dispute and an indexed bundle of documents, ensuring that we were thoroughly prepared to advance our case persuasively and effectively at the JSM, which we attended together with our instructing solicitor. As a result of our robust preparation we were able to clearly demonstrate to the Defendant the strength of our case on each of the issues.

The Outcome

While settlement was not agreed at the JSM itself, it put our costs claim on a decidedly positive footing. We made a further settlement offer shortly after the meeting and thereafter negotiated a very favourable settlement which equated to a 83% recovery of the costs claimed overall, notwithstanding the unique difficulties faced, including on proportionality and in relation to the experts’ and counsels’ fees. This result was achieved without the delay, expense and uncertainty of a detailed assessment hearing.

Our instructing solicitor was extremely pleased with the outcome and praised our excellent work on the case. Similarly, the Claimant itself was very happy with the level of costs recovery achieved, which exceeded its expectations.