[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Bowcott v Walding [2003] EWHC 9042 (Costs) (14 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9042.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9042 (Costs)

[New search] [Help]

No.22 of 2003

Nigel Bowcott v Walding
14 October 2003
Mrs Justice Hallett (Sitting With Assessors)

The claimant was badly injured as a passenger in a car driven by the deceased, and on the full liability basis his claim would have been worth in excess of £1 million. Liability was agreed at 80% on the deceased and 20% on the claimant, and the matter proceeded to the assessment of damages before Mr Justice Leveson starting on 7 May 2003.

Briefs were delivered to the publicly funded claimants leading and junior counsel on 10 April, and on 19 April the defendants made an increased Part 36 offer, accompanied by a payment into court. On advice, the claimant, who in fact is now a patient in the Court of Protection, did not accept that sum at that stage, but by the third day of the trial it became apparent that he was not going to do any better, and accordingly the case was settled on the basis that he would accept the increased payment in.

The trial Judge specifically asked the parties when the claimants counsel’s briefs had been delivered, and was told the date was 10 April. He thereupon ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs down to 19 April, and the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs from 19 April.

The claimant had a leading Silk, Mr W. Braithwaite QC, and Dr Simon Fox, and their brief fees were agreed, during the course of the trial, at £8,000 for the Leader and £7,500 for the Junior. At the assessment of the claimants and defendants costs bills the Deputy Master allowed the claimants counsel’s brief fees in full and the defendant appealed.

The Judge held that the Costs Judges’ decision was wrong, because the question which he should have asked himself was not whether the claimants counsel had done the work, and therefore were entitled to the full brief fees, but what proportion of those brief fees were payable by the defendants in the light of the Judge’s order. She held that the claimants counsel were entitled to a commitment fee, representing half the properly assessed brief fees. On advice from her assessors she considered that the appropriate brief fee for Mr Braithwaite would have been £15,000 rather than the £8,000 claimed in the bill and that the appropriate discount for much, if not all, of the preparation work properly done after 19 April was 50%.

Accordingly, she reduced leading counsel’s brief fee from £8,000 to £7,500, and junior counsel’s brief fee to £3,750.

The Judge in her judgment said that in a case such as this where a settlement needing the court’s approval was involved it was important for the Judge approving that settlement to have as much information as possible as to the likely level of costs, so that he or she could decide whether the amount proposed for payment to the patient or minor was in fact reasonable.