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
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
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
a judge undertake summary assessment of costs when the costs order was made by a different judge? This was the issue which came before Coulson J in Transformers and Rectifiers v Needs  EWHC 1687 (TCC), a judgment handed down last
Friday, 12 June 2015.
Coulson J was to summarily assess costs under a costs order he had made. At the same time he was asked by the claimant to undertake summary assessment of two costs orders also made against the defendant but made by Edwards-Stuart J in November 2014.
All three costs orders arose out the defendant's unsuccessful attempt to adjourn a preliminary issues trial.
Coulson J stated that there is nothing to prevent one judge summarily assessing the costs of a hearing which was conducted by a different judge and further he considered that to hold otherwise would make no sense on a practical level. He emphasized
that the relevant provision, CPR PD 44, para 9.7, is permissive therefore the summary assessment may be heard by the judge that made the costs order or by another judge. Which judge undertakes the summary assessment will be depend on the circumstances
and which is most appropriate.
As to which judge should undertake the summary assessment he noted that if a judge has heard a contested application involving submissions and witness evidence it would be more appropriate for that judge to make the summary assessment of costs as they
will have heard evidence which will not be available to a different judge. If the costs order was made hearing determined the application on the papers then the same evidence would be available to the later judge and there were therefore just
as well placed as the original judge to undertake the summary assessment.
Coulson J also considered the relevance of the Overriding Objective stating that it requires speedy and effective justice and to ensure that, it comes with a degree of flexibility. It would run counter to the overriding objective if a summary assessment
of costs could not be made due either at all or in a timely manner because e.g. the original judge had died, was indisposed or was unable to deal with the matter at the time required e.g. was out on circuit.
Finally he considered the Court of Appeal judgment in Mahmood & Anr v Penrose & Others  EWCA Civ 457, a case in which he noted that as both parties had represented themselves and it was unclear whether the point had been argued before
the court, it was therefore doubtful whether the Court of Appeal had intended to lay down any point of principle. He distinguished it on the basis that:
Finally I would note that CPR PD 44, para 9.7 opens with the wording ‘The court awarding costs cannot make an order for a summary assessment of costs by a costs officer’. For practitioners considering what is meant by a
‘costs officer’, it is a position held within the Senior Court Costs Office and is defined with the SCCO Guide as ‘Authorised court officers who assess most bills for sums not exceeding certain amounts specified from time to time.
From their decisions, appeals lie as of right to the Costs Judges.’
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Janna is a dispute resolution lawyer. She deals primarily with cross border issues and is active in the work being undertaken in relation to the implications of Brexit for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Janna also heads up a LexisNexis costs team bringing together expertise from across the company to deal with the costs issues facing the profession.
0330 161 1234