Forthcoming Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules
The 57th update to the Civil Procedure Rules1
introduces a number of amendments to the Rules, some of which directly
impact upon the recovery of legal costs. The amendments introduced by
the 57th update will come into force by the 1st October 20112,
so it is essential that Solicitors are ready for the changes. This
article considers the following amendments which may impact upon the
recovery of legal costs.
Changes to Part 36: Goodbye Carver!
The 57th update inserts the following new Section 1A into Rule 36.14:
Section 1A into Rule 36.14:
“For
the purposes of paragraph (1), in relation to any money claim or money
element of a claim, ‘more advantageous’ means better in money terms by
any amount, however small, and ‘at least as advantageous’ shall be
construed accordingly.”
This new Section effectively reverses the uncertainty created by the Judgment in Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412.
In Carver, the Claimant only beat the Defendant’s payment in by £51 and
therefore it was decided that the Claimant had not achieved a Judgment
which could properly be considered to be “more advantageous”. Thus, the
Claimant failed to recover her costs and was ordered to pay the
Defendant’s costs from the time that acceptance of the payment in had
expired. The Court of Appeal approved the first instance decision and
dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. Hence, since Carver it has been
difficult to know with any certainty how much the final Judgment has had
to exceed any Part 36 offer made by the Defendant for the Claimant to
be protected costs-wise.
Judgments that exceed any Part 36
offer made on or after 1st October 2011, by even just £1, will be
considered to be “more advantageous” than the Defendant’s offer. This
new amendment to the Rules is likely to come as a welcome comfort to
Claimant’s Solicitors when assessing Part 36 offers made.
The amendment is not unexpected and has been heralded in recent Judgments such as that of Lord Justice Jackson in Fox v Foundation Pilling Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 790.
The purpose of Part 36 has been to create a clear and simple framework
to allow parties to work towards settlement with certainty. The
amendment should help to achieve this purpose.
Amendments to the Costs Practice Direction
Estates
Minor amendments are to be introduced
which are intended to streamline the process and minimise work and
costs incurred in litigation about estates.
Litigants in person
The rate which a litigant in person
can recover for financial loss through spending time on legal work,
where the actual amount of financial loss cannot be proved, will
increase to £18.00 per hour. This represents an increase of over 94% on
the hourly rate currently allowed.
Costs Management Scheme – Defamation Proceedings
The scheme is to be extended until
30th September 2012 and amendments are to be made to the effect of
budgets on case management and costs.
County Court Provisional Assessment Pilot Scheme
The scheme has been extended for
another year for detailed assessments in York, Leeds and Scarborough for
Bills where the base costs claimed are less than £25,000.00.
Costs Management Scheme – Mercantile Courts and Technology and Constructions Courts
Pilot scheme inserted as Practice
Direction 51G to manage the costs incurred in certain Proceedings. The
pilot scheme is to run from 1st October 2011 until 30 September 2012 to
operate in all Mercantile Courts and Technology and Construction Courts
where the first case management conference is heard on or after 1st
October 2011.
The purpose of the scheme and costs
management is to allow the Courts to seek to manage the costs of the
litigation and the case in accordance with the overriding objective.
The Practice Direction allows the
Courts to make costs management orders approving the costs budget of any
party to the proceedings. Whilst the Court cannot approve costs
incurred prior to the first costs management order, the Court may record
comments on those costs incurred and should take them into account when
considering the reasonableness and proportionality of subsequent costs
incurred.
In any appropriate Proceedings, where
the Judge considers it appropriate, or on an application of any party,
the Judge may make a costs management order.
It is important to note that the
provisions for costs estimates detailed in Paragraph 6.4(1)(a) are not
applicable where the scheme applies. Costs budgets/estimates which need
to be filed, must be presented as a detailed budget setting out the
estimated costs for the entire Proceedings in a standard template form,
which substantially follows the Precedent HB annexed to Practice
Direction 51G.
The Practice Direction details the
procedure for filing the necessary costs budgets, keeping parties
informed and the purpose of costs management. Where a costs management
order has been made and the costs budget is no longer accurate, a
revised budget must be filed and served detailing any departures from
the approved budget which may be approved or disapproved by the Court.
The effect on any subsequent
assessment of costs, when assessing costs on the standard basis, is that
the Court will have regard to the receiving party’s last approved
budget. Additionally, the Court will not depart from such approved
budget unless it is satisfied that there is a good reason to do so.
As ever, costs is an increasingly complex area and if you are unsure about any aspect, it is always worth getting some professional advice before it's too late!
The information and opinions set out within this article merely represent
the views of the writer and do not form any kind of formal advice. ©
Veritas Professional Legal Services Limited 2011. This article may not
be reproduced without written permission of the copyright holder.
1 The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2011
2 Section 1 of The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2011