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.
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
Simon Beasley, senior associate, Griffin Law examines the case of Campbell v Campbell in which the High Court was required to consider the extent to which the CPR permitted a litigant in person (LiP) to recover legal costs incurred for advice and services outside the jurisdiction.
The defendant had made an application for permission to appeal out of time, against previous orders made by a Deputy and Chief Master in this matter. This was refused and the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the application.
During summary assessment of these costs, an issue arose regarding the recoverability of certain heads of costs by the claimant, at that time a LiP.
The LiP had received advice and assistance from their solicitors, a Jersey law firm, in relation to the litigation in England. The lawyers were practicing solicitors in England and Wales. The principal issue was the extent to which the CPR permitted a
LiP to recover legal costs incurred for advice taken from solicitors only qualified outside the jurisdiction.
David Foxton QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court), after receiving written submissions from the parties on these cost issues held that the claimant could not recover the costs of their Jersey solicitors’ work as they were services provided
by a lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction and so did not constitute ‘legal services’ under CPR 48.6(3)(b). The result of this decision was that these costs would be no more recoverable, in English proceedings, than those provided by
a lay (legally unqualified) individual.
A contrast was identified between such costs and the ‘unbundling’ of legal services that Lord Woolf contemplated in the Access to Justice—Final Report (1999), which focused on situations whereby a barrister or solicitor provided legal
services to a party regarding only certain aspects, as opposed to the entirety, of a matter.
Due to the above, the further pleaded issues of such costs being ‘reasonably incurred and reasonable and proportionate in amount’ did not therefore arise.
However, helpful further guidance was given in that the Judge considered the firm had [in summary] a ‘familiarity with the background issues to this litigation’ the work was of a kind to be ‘expected [of] an English solicitor with conduct
of litigation’ and there was no assertion that the time or costs claimed were ‘themselves unreasonable or disproportionate’.
There was no issue as to the fees of Mr Machell QC, who had represented the claimant via the Bar Public Access Scheme. This permits the direct instruction of a barrister, by a client, as opposed to by a solicitor acting upon their behalf—being a
disbursement and claimable as such under CPR 46.5(3)(a)(ii).
This was a point addressed in the previous case of Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes)(Costs)  EWCA Civ 1507,
 1 All ER 900,
although at that time the points relevant to such were embodied within CPR 48.6(3) and concerned the cost of advice given by specialist tax advisors.
Helpfully, this case has directly addressed the position of the recoverability of legal costs, incurred by a LiP, for advice and services provided by those qualified outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales. As such this will have significant
effect in respect of future LiPs who are attempting to obtain assistance from sources that are not ‘disbursements’ under CPR 46.5(3)(a)(ii)
or ‘legal services’ under CPR 46.5(3)(b).
Lexis®PSL Arbitration subscribers enjoy a wealth of expert analysis. Click here for a free trial to access if you are not a PSL subscriber.
PSL practical point: There is a later decision in this same case, in which Chief Master Marsh gives judicial recognition to the reasoning of David Foxton QC and does not interfere with it (see Campbell v Campbell  EWHC 2237 (Ch)).
Interviewed by Bridget O’Connell.The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
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