BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Matthews v Dorkin & Motor Insurers Bureau [2000] EWHC 9016 (Costs) (26 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2000/9016.html Cite as: [2000] EWHC 9016 (Costs) |
||
[New search] [Help]
No.16 of 2000
Matthews v Dorkin & Motor Insurers Bureau
26 October 2000
Mr Justice Garland Sitting With Assessors
This was an appeal from an assessment between the parties by a Deputy Costs Judge of the claimants costs of a successful action against the defendants arising out of a very routine accident claim, where the claimant was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle who was badly injured when the first defendant’s car turned across its path in such a way that the rider was unable to avoid a collision.
There were a substantial number of small items appealed by Junior Counsel only, and as these turned very much on the facts of the case, do not justify report here.
However the one matter that does justify report concerns Junior Counsel’s brief fee. He sought a brief fee of £5,000, which was 50% of that claimed by his Leader. The Leader’s brief fee was allowed by the Deputy Master at £8,000, and accordingly Junior Counsel’s brief fee was reduced to £4,000. Nevertheless Junior Counsel, who alone appealed, suggested that he should still be allowed £5,000, even though his Leader had not appealed. At the hearing, in which he represented himself, counsel accepted that the brief fee was not a negotiated fee, and that his clerk had originally submitted a claim for half his Leader’s fee of £10,000. The appellant counsel criticised the Deputy Costs Judge for not taking into account the allowances made in, what he said was, a similar case, and for making comparison of a claimants’ counsel’s fees with those of the defendant’s counsel.
The Judge held that the proper approach was to look at the time spent and the work actually carried out. The court’s view was since these were not negotiated fees, and Junior Counsel’s fee had been submitted at 50% of his Leader’s fee, it was impossible to criticise the Deputy Costs Judge’s approach, and therefore no increase would be granted on the brief fee.
On the question of costs the Judge pointed out that the total amount in dispute was £4,650, and the increases allowed following the appeal were only £960. The claimant’s costs of appeal, excluding anything representing a brief fee, amounted to £1,285.58. Commenting that counsel had only succeeded to the extent of 20.6% of the sum contended for, the Judge awarded the claimant’s solicitors £500 plus VAT for costs against the defendant.
