Legal News

High Court sets out test for setting aside orders made without a hearing in hourly costs challenge (R (on the application of Kuznetsov) v London Borough of Camden)

Published on: 31 July 2020
imgtext

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....

Popular documents