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
Printer Friendly Version
The case of Savoye & Savoye v Spicers  EWHC 33 (TCC) concerned the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. However, it was the decision made by Akerman J on costs that will be of more interest to insolvency professionals engaged in litigation, where the Judge was robust in his application of proportionality, especially in terms of the partner's costs incurred in the matter which the Judge reduced from 111 hours to just 20 hours. Further, although none of the parties had any issue with the other using Leading Counsel, the Judge did, as he did not consider that the issues in the case were sufficient to justify their use. The successful party in the case recovered less than half of the costs claimed (£96,465 versus £201,790).
This case provides a salutary warning on costs and, unless you have discussed the issue with your client, a failure to recover over half the fees incurred from the other side could be a very difficult conversation to have with your client. This is especially where your client is an insolvency practitioner and the proportion of costs incurred which are not recoverable from the other party would otherwise fall to be an expense of the insolvent estate to be paid ahead of creditors' claims.
Our Dispute Resolution colleagues have blogged some analysis on this case which can be accessed by clicking here
0330 161 1234