Detailed assessment

Introduction

Detailed assessment is a process by which the court determines the level of costs to be paid by one party to another. Generally, costs will be agreed between the parties and so the use of detailed assessment to determine the costs payable to the winning party is relatively rare. If you are involved in a detailed assessment, it is essential to understand the process, the rules (and where to find them), the involvement of the court, the time limitations and the terminology that applies as well as the different types of costs certificates available:

  1. paying party—the party who has been ordered by the court to pay costs

  2. receiving party—the party to be paid their costs

The receiving party has responsibility for starting the detailed assessment process, which must be commenced within three months after the event giving rise to the right arose, eg within three months after the date of judgment. Failure to commence detailed assessment in time can result in sanctions being applied. In order to commence detailed assessment, the receiving party needs to serve documents set out in CPR PD 47, para 5.2 on

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents