Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In Malmsten v Bohinc  EWHC 1386 (Ch), the High Court allowed an appeal in part against an order for costs made following detailed assessment. The judgment helpfully sets out the approach on summary and detailed assessment and on an appeal and serves as a useful reminder to practitioners of the principles which apply. The court found that the costs judge had failed to give effect to the costs orders by including costs which were outside its scope and had focused too much on the conduct of the paying party (CPR 44.3(5)(d)) when assessing the proportionality of the costs claimed. The appellate court conducted its own assessment and reduced the costs awarded by nearly seventy per cent. In all other respects the appeal was unsuccessful.
At a costs seminar last night, hosted by Hailsham Chambers, Imran Benson, the barrister who represented the successful applicants, provided a practical insight into an approach that may assist the courts in understanding the arguments being made on proportionality. Suggesting to the court a proportionate figure might be persuasive. In doing so, the work a reasonable solicitor would need to undertake was laid out together with the hours required and a reasonable hourly rate was then applied. In this case, such workings resulted in a proportionate figure being £12,000, as compared to the costs being at that stage, of £47,500. The approach appears to have paid off as the judge awarded just £15,000 plus VAT.
An analysis of the judgment by Imran Benson is available below and was previously published by Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution on 12 June 2019.
What are the practical implications of this case?
Although this decision is not revolutionary, it does confirm a few things:
What was the background?
The underlying litigation was a dispute between the two shareholders of a small company which led to a simple application for an inevitable order to break the deadlock. The litigation lasted three weeks and led to a 30 minute hearing. The bill for this was c.£62,500 + VAT. On provisional assessment the figures were reduced a little and at the detailed assessment re-hearing reduced a little more, but remained substantial.
What did the court decide?
On appeal to the High Court, Marcus Smith J decided that much of the work done was not ‘incidental’ to the eventual proceedings since they were not ‘subordinate’ to them. But most readers will be interested in his approach to proportionality.
He made the following points:
Imran Benson is a barrister at Hailsham Chambers. He represented the successful appellants.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234