Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Kuznetsov applied under CPR 3.3(5)(a) to set aside a costs order which was made against him in the absence of the parties. The application was advanced on the basis that the rate of £317 per hour claimed by the London Borough of Camden’s (the borough) solicitors—who were employees of the borough —breached the indemnity principle. The court concluded that the standard required for a CPR 3.3(5)(a) application to succeed was lower than for a CPR 3.1(7) application or an appeal. The court went on to hold that it would only be in a special case where it was reasonably clear that claiming a ‘market rate’ for an employed solicitor would breach the indemnity principle that the court would entertain any investigation of whether the indemnity principle had been breached. This was not a special case. The application therefore failed....
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial