Inside Law 7

INSIDE LAWThe Magazine for the Legal Sector
Recoverability
of Agency Fees
Kate Mack
Payments
on Account
of Costs
Prof. Dom Regan
Costs
Budgeting
Paul Kay
Tae
Kwon
DoughTracey Benson

Welcome to the first edition
of Inside Law for 2014.
Regular readers can’t help but to have noticed
that we introduce a bright new look with this
edition - our striking cover story coming
from Slater & Gordon’s Tracey Benson.
Tracey offers her fascinating account of
the case which spawned “Cash for K.O.”
headlines amongst the tabloids late last year and
saw her client’s story make Page 3 of The Sun.
As the dust continues to settle 9 months on since
the Jackson reforms, we have a number of
experts on hand to help clear a
path through some of the rubble…
Costs Budgeting continues to be the subject of
much discussion following April’s changes and
R Costings’ Head of Budgeting, Paul Kay offers us
some insight into Master Cook’s approach to the
subject. Fellow Costs Draftsman Kate Mack shows
us that when it comes to Agent Fees, it helps to
know your Base Costs from your Disbursements.
Meanwhile, Professor. Dominic Regan not
only offers advice with regards to Payments on
Account of Costs subject to detailed assessment,
but also 20% off the publishers price of his
latest book “Surviving Jackson”,
exclusively for Inside Law readers.
Enjoy your read.
Paul Reason,
Managing Director, R Costings Ltd
2

Limitation Issues
18
“When is a Claim Form Deemed Issued?”
3
“...there is seemingly still a bone of contention between
parties with regard to the recoverability of external
agency fees as a disbursement or base cost;”
Recoverability of
Agent Fees
8
“There are many more complex and less obvious
pitfalls to the budgeting process than neglecting to file
a Budget by deadline…”
Costs Budgeting
11
“We are taking some volunteers out [to Malawi] in May
2014 if anyone reading would be interested?”
Sporting Connections
16
“If you are in a budgeted action I suggest that you
ought to be seeking much more and this is why...”
Payments On
Account Of Costs
7“A few seconds of recklessness so that the
instructor could “show off” in this case resulted
in devastating consequences.”
Tae Kwon “Dough”
4
Clouded Judgements
12
“Why is the Legal Sector still so reluctant to
commit to cloud based I.T. services?”

Tracey Benson
Solicitor (Personal Injury)
Slater & Gordon
4
Case Law
You might think that the title of this
article is rather a brash and inappropri-
ate way to describe the misfortune of
my client Rachel Phillips who sustained
severe injuries whilst taking part in a
karate lesson at a martial arts school
in Basingstoke. However, this was the
caption printed on page 3 of The Sun
newspaper after I obtained damages of
£200k for the Claimant. My colleagues
found it highly amusing that I featured
on page 3 of The Sun but our marketing
department assures me that this is the
most read page of any tabloid newspa-
per and the best advertising space one
could hope for!
Rachel was a novice at karate and after
her fourth beginners lesson she asked
the instructor some questions and he
engaged in some sparring with her. She
had only covered basic footwork and
punches. With no prior warning or even
any discussion concerning “throws”
or “foot sweeps” or any karate move
that involves being manhandled the
Defendant performed a move (which he
later told us was a “foot sweep”) which
involved using one of his legs to sweep
the Claimant off her feet into the air
and then throw her to the ground with
extreme force. The force of the
contact caused her left leg to twist so
awkwardly and with such force that she
ruptured her ACL; tore her PCL; tore
the NCL and sustained a significant
injury to the LCL and the Postero-lateral
corner.
The Claimant endured 3
operations and extensive rehabilita-
tion. She went through 3 years of hell
before she reached an end point in her
physical recovery and is unable to run,
squat, kneel or do anything particularly
active with her children.
The case was pursued on the basis
that the Claimant had not even started
learning any form of throws or moves
involving the lower limbs and was com-
pletely unprepared when the instruc-
tor performed the move upon her. In
correspondence we established that
the move that he was demonstrating
was a foot sweep. We argued that
the move was performed using highly
excessive force and should only have
been performed on somebody more
experienced and with warning and that
the Claimant could not have consented
to the risk of injury by taking part in a
karate lesson as this particular type of
injury could not have occurred during
sparring.
We were met with a denial of liability
on the basis that the foot sweep was
executed correctly, without undue force
and was not misjudged. They did not
accept that the Claimant was thrown
into the air and stated that it would not be
appropriate in a sparring situation to
warn an opponent of any move they
were intending to use. They maintained
that the move had been practiced in
class and that the Claimant had indeed
seen the move and performed it in
previous lessons. They also quoted the
case of Cope v. Cassells (1990) and
were of the view that when taking part
in martial arts she accepted the risk
of injury whilst taking part in a contact
sport.
Tae
Kwon
Dough
태권도반죽

This case arose from a Sunday football
match and the Defendant performed
a sliding tackle which the referee had
described as serious foul play and
reckless. The Judge had no difficulty
in that particular case in finding that Mr
Basi had been negligent and awarded
damages. Condon was followed by a
number of cases which also applied an
ordinary negligence test. In McCord v.
Swansea City AFC (1997) the Claim-
ant suffered an injury which ended his
career. The Judge found that the tackle
amounted to a serious misjudgement
and awarded damages.
In Watson v. Gray and Another (1998)
the Court decided in favour of the
Claimant on the basis that the tackle by
Kevin Gray on Gordon Watson carried
with it a significant risk of injury which
should have been apparent to a rea-
sonable professional footballer. The
Judgment of Watson v. Gray is a very
interesting read. Jimmy Hill describes
the tackle as ”late, dangerous and
violent and the worst he had seen in 50
years of football”.
At this point we brought in the help of
an expert. There were no independent
witnesses and the recollection of the
Claimant was considerably different to
the Defendant. Despite that we felt con-
fident in proceeding. Had the incident
occurred during a lesson (rather than
alone after the lesson) and the Claim-
ant was fully aware that a foot sweep
was about to be or could be performed
at any moment then the case would
have been much more difficult but our
expert was of the view that keeping a
student behind after the class was in-
appropriate and to perform this type of
move on a novice was a serious error of
judgement which could be described as
reckless. We were concerned about
an evidential dispute re the mechan-
ics of exactly what happened and that
the excessive force argument could
not be corroborated by independent
witness evidence. We were therefore
set for a battle on liability but short-
ly after receiving our detailed list of
disclosure requests to include lesson
plans and attendance records, risk
assessments, claimants joining pack,
safety certificate, karate syllabus, gov-
erning body registration documents they
admitted liability! We were happily able
to secure much needed compensation
for the Claimant which was the very
least that she deserved. A few seconds
of recklessness so that the instructor
could “show off” in this case resulted in
devastating consequences.
Sporting injuries and the recovery of
compensation will largely depend upon
establishing negligence. If a participant
is injured deliberately then there may
be a case for assault/battery which
may also amount to a criminal offence.
I have had many queries from people
injured in non-professional football
matches but these defendants are
virtually always uninsured and pursuing
them is not cost effective.
Going back to establishing negligence;
the central area of contention in relation
to sporting injuries is that of the extent
of the duty of care owed by one sporting
participant to another and what behav-
iour will be construed as breaching that
duty. The difficulty is many sports do
carry a risk of physical injury and there
is a consensual acceptance of this risk
by taking part in the sport but there is
certainly not a consensual acceptance
of negligence/recklessness.
In the case of Condon v. Basi (1985)
the CA applied an “ordinary” negligence
test.
5

20% Off Publishers Price
for Inside Law Readers
Inside Law readers can save £20 on the publishers price of
“Surviving Jackson” by Jeff Zindani & Professor Dominic Regan
Simply Email orders@sunlegalpublishing.co.uk with your order
quoting reference RC SZ1. An invoice for £79.99 will be sent with
the book.
“Lawyers don’t like to be told there is urgency
or a crisis unless it involves a paying party”
6
In Pitcher v. Huddersfield Town
Football Club a late tackle crossed “the
high threshold to take this case from a
simple late tackle to one of negligence”.
All of the above cases are about the
laws of football and it can be difficult
to apply the reasoning in these cas-
es to other sporting accidents. simple
late tackle to one of negligence”. All of
the above cases are about the laws of
football and it can be difficult to apply
the reasoning in these cases to other
sporting accidents.
The CA case of Caldwell v Maguire
and Fitzgerald (2001) provided further
assistance. This involved a jockey who
was thrown from his mount during a
race and injured. The steward’s en-
quiry attributed claim to the Defendant
who had cut across the path of anoth-
er horse leading to a chain of events
which led to the Claimant falling. Their
conduct amounted to a breach of the
race rules and the case was pursued
on the basis that the negligence test
would succeed.
However, Holland J. reviewed the pre-
vious authorities and concluded: “The
proof of a breach of duty will not flow
from proof of no more than an error of
judgement or of a momentary lapse of
skill respectively when subject to the
stresses of a race. Such are no more
than incidents inherent in the nature of
the sport… in practice it may therefore
be difficult to prove any such breach
of duty absent proof of conduct that in
point of fact amounts to reckless disre-
gard for the fellow contestants’ safety. I
emphasise the distinction between the
expression of legal principle and the
practicalities of the evidential burden.”
He rejected the Claimant’s case.
The Judgment was upheld on appeal
with Tuckey L.J. commenting: “There
will be no liability for errors of judge-
ment, oversights or lapses. Something
more serious is required.” This case
gave clear guidance as to what is re-
quired in order to establish negligence
in a sporting situation.
In Blake v. Galloway (2004) the Court
referred to the sports authorities in the
case of horseplay by 15 year old boys.
Dyson L.J. said: “The common features
between horseplay of this kind and
formal sport involving vigorous
physical activity are that both involved
consensual participation in an activity
(i) which involves physical contact or at
least the risk of it, (ii) in which decisions
are usually expected to be made
quickly and often as an instinctive
response to the acts of other partici-
pants, so that (iii) the very nature of the
activity makes it difficult to avoid the
risk of physical harm…
The victims of such accidents will
usually not be able to recover damages
unless they show that the injury has
been caused by a failure to take care
which amounts to recklessness or a
very high degree of carelessness.”
The latter 2 cases caused me a
great deal of stress when pursu-
ing a case for a goal tender in an ice
hockey match who sustained a severe
injury when tackled during a fast moving
professional game and I was very con-
cerned that the behaviour of the oppo-
nent would be viewed as a momentary
lapse of skill during the stress of a high
level game. Fortunately the case set-
tled half way through trial!
Applying the above case law to the facts
of the Rachel Phillips case it is clear to
me that the behaviour of the instructor
was indeed reckless or at the very least
a high degree of carelessness and it
was entirely foreseeable that serious
injury could result.

Payments on
Account of Costs
Prof. Dominic Regan
Professor Dominic Regan is, with
Jeff Zindani, the co-author of
“Surviving Jackson”, available from
Sun Legal Publishing at £99.99
There were so, so many changes
implemented back in April. A profound
but overlooked reform was the arrival of
CPR 44.2(8).
“Where the court orders a party to pay
costs subject to detailed assessment, it
will order that party to pay a reasonable
sum on account of costs, unless there
is good reason not to do so.”
Previously, the court had discretion as
to whether to even make an order at all.
Now, the starting point is that it will so
order. What is a good reason today not
to make an order? If the Judge grants
leave to, appeal it may be that they will
hold back since a reversal may occur in
the appellate court.
In the past Judges were extremely
cautious about ordering significant
payments for fear of doling out too
much and many on the bench would be
directing a conservative percentage of
perhaps as little as 35% of what they
felt would ultimately be recovered.
If you are in a budgeted action I
suggest that you ought to be seeking
much more and this is why. The old
approach was applied because the trial
Judge would not have a clue about the
history of the case. It would appear in
their list and they would hear it .
Contrast the position today where a
Judge who has undertaken a budge-
ting hearing will have delved into the
dispute and acquired a flavour of it.
This is very different.
Let me give you an example.
Say the approved budget is £100,
000. At the end of the case which
you have won I think you ought to be
looking for, say, 75% on account? Since
the court has intimated that it would be
reasonable to spend £100,000 where is
the harm in awarding a substantial but
lesser sum on account ?
There is another secret Judicial
tactic here. A Judge who has awarded a
large interim payment on account of
costs will secretly hope that the par-
ties will do a deal on the outstanding
balance since it now represents a
comparatively modest sum.
They will never darken the door of the
court again. Cunning eh?
Finally, appreciate the canny move of
HHJ Simon Brown QC who, on more
than one occasion, has awarded the
winner the budgeted sum as their costs
where they have adhered to it .
When I spoke to him about this he
explained that, having looked at
the costs carefully at the budgeting
hearing, he could not see any material
benefit in wasting time and money on a
detailedassessment.Thisisanexcellent
exercise of discretion and accords with
the new overriding objective which
insists that cases be dealt with “at
proportionate cost”, a vital amendment
also from April.
7

Regular readers can’t help but to have
noticed that we introduce a bright new look with this
edition - with our striking cover story coming from
Slater & Gordon’s Tracey Benson.
Tracey offers her fascinating account of the case
which spawned “Cash for K.O.” headlines amongst
the tabloids late last year.
Three quarters-on and the dust continues to settle
following the Jackson reforms
Paul Reason,
8
Legal Costs
Recoverability
of Agent Fees
Despite persuasive opinion backed by unreported authority, there is seemingly still
a bone of contention between parties with regard to the recoverability of external
agency fees as a disbursement or base cost; with the potential of an added success
fee in a hybrid of cases pre-Jackson recoverable from the Defendant (the Claimant
in cases post-Jackson). So, what is the present position and on which side of the
fence should parties be falling when it comes to agency fees?
When establishing how certain cost elements should be recovered from the paying
party, we should refer back to the purpose of the Woolf Reforms. Following Lord
Woolfs’ review, the CPR was implemented to ensure compliance with the ‘overri-
ding objective’; to make the Civil Justice System accessible, fair and efficient and
to do so through rules which were simple. However, as is ever the case in law there
is always room for ambiguity and Lord Woolf’s reforms are no different.
Even in these post-Jackson days when
considering external agency fees
incurred, such ambiguity can still arise.
Smith Graham v Lord Chancellor
(unreported) established the principle
specifically in respect of agency fees.
Smith Graham allows us to review
the initial consideration of outsourcing
fee earning work and accounting for
the same as a base cost, (incurring a
potential success fee) as opposed to a
disbursement. Smith Graham conside-
red the fees of an enquiry agent (retired
police Officer) which were claimed at
an enhanced fee earner’s hourly rate
rather than at the invoiced amount as
a disbursement. LJ Hallett determined
that if the work done was appropriate
for a fee earner to carry out, then this
would be chargeable at an hourly rate;
however an enhancement above that of
a Grade C fee earner would need to be
considered on a case by case basis.
LJ Hallett focused on the element of the
work done by the agent in determining
the recoverability of the cost incurred.
The sub-focus should be on the type
of work and the ultimate control over
the work being done. Alternately, an
agent is a person who has authority to
act under the instructions of another.
The fundamental control held is of the
fee earner. In terms of instructing an
agent to obtain a witness statement,
or a translator to translate documents
and liaise with the client; is all work that
fee earners would usually undertake. A
fee earner must also ensure that they
have the correct ‘resources, skills and
procedures to carry out [their] clients
instructions; and the service [provided
must be] competent, delivered in a
timely manner and take account of…
needs and circumstance’ (Solicitors
Code of Conduct O(1.4) & (1.5))
It would be uneconomical and against
such code for a firm of solicitors to turn
down work purely as a result of langua-
ge barriers which may arise and poten-
tial distance issues. In this circumstan-
ce it would be perfectly reasonable for a
fee earner to delegate translation work,
and liaise directly with the client and
attend upon the client for the purposes
of preparing a statement and any other
type of fee earning work. The same is
determined as work to be carried out
by a solicitor, legal executive or a clerk
for whom a direct charge for the work
done would be made to the claimant.
Fee earning work could be established
as ‘taking instructions, interviewing
witnesses, ascertaining the prosecu-
tion case,…preparing and perusing
documents…conferences…views…
travelling and waiting etc’ (Legal Aid in
Criminal and Care Proceedings Cost
Regulations 1989 Reg. 6)
There are many other times when de-
legation of work would be to both the
client and fee earners’ advantage such
as attending upon additional witnesses
to take statements; instructing medical
agents to collate and paginate medical
records; agents to attend upon immo-
bile clients for purposes of obtaining
further details to support the claim in-
cluding saving the fee earner potential
considerable travel time; site visits to
obtain evidence in relation to locus;

Costs Lawyers to prepare Precedent H Budgets,
Bills of Costs and to deal with Detailed Assessment
proceedings, and even agents to act as advocates in
pre-Trial hearings such as Directions hearings and
Case Management Conferences.
To delegate in such a way allows fee earner’s
to focus on their client directly maintaining high
levels of client care, and to focus on the more
complex legal issues which cannot be outsourced.
We have seen over the years a dramatic increase
in the outsourcing of work done;
however this is predominantly by higher
grades of fe earners. If the work being
carried out is something for which the fee earner
would ultimately do for his client if an agent wasn’t
available then this would be chargeable to the client
as a profit cost.
At this point, it should be mentioned that success
fees on top of base costs were introduced to afford
protection for unsuccessful cases and thus, allowing
access to justice. The success fee is not a ‘reward’
but a ‘re-imbursement’ for lost claims where costs in-
curred were not recoverable and so any applicable
success fee should be fairly recovered at the uplift
assessed upon the risks at the outset of the claim
as determined in Crane v Cannons Leisure Centre.
Crane focused on the wording of the
CCFA in place at the time and the
specifics of the fees of the agent as
‘Base Costs’ or ‘Disbursements’.
While the specific wording within an
agreement may result in certain
elements of costs being included
under disbursements; if the agreement
is silent on a specific cost then further
consideration needs to me made as to
the work done, the proportionality of the
same, the reasonableness of the cost
incurred and the control held over the
work being done by the agent.
The CPR clearly deals with disbur-
sements payable on a Bill both under
fixed and non-fixed costs. To put the
argument of Smith Graham and Crane
into context; in order to maximise the
recoverability of costs it may be simple
for the paying party to assume that a
fee earner would outsource more work
to enable them to increase their case-
load, and then claim back the cost as
an additional disbursements on top of
fixed costs (post-Jackson). (Cont....)
9

Paul Reason,
10
(...Continued)
Whilst it may be beneficial for the fee
earner to do this to maximise their time,
the CPR is, in my opinion, clear in terms
of the payable costs over and above fi-
xed fees. A disbursement is described
as ‘any other disbursement that has
arisen due to a particular feature of
the dispute’; such as medical evidence
and Counsel’s advice to name just two.
There is no provision for agency fees
for fee earning work to be included.
A fee earner readily finds themself in
a position of being against strict time-
frames, and high caseloads and it is
therefore appropriate for delegation to
take place of work which a fee earner is
responsible for but is capable of being
undertaken by an agents. If this attracts
a success fee then this is irrelevant to
the argument as to whether the work
done should be a base cost or a disbur-
sement. If the agent is working for the
solicitor and acting under their autho-
rity, the nature of the work is the fun-
damental point irrelevant of the status
of the person carrying it out. Whether
the fee earner makes a profit from the
same is immaterial as this is the purpo-
se of any business (Stringer v Copley)
To conclude, it is evident that someti-
mes the use of external agents results
in a greater profit to the fee earner,
however profit should not be seen as a
dirty word. The additional success fee,
as previously indicated is beside the
point as to whether the fee should be
a base cost or disbursement as post-
Jackson this is still recoverable just not
on an inter-partes basis.
An agent’s fee is often lower than the
overall charge to the claimant but, to
ensure indemnity is not breached in
relation to the overall costs payable
by the claimant; the work outsourced
is charged at lesser rate to that of the
fee earner with conduct. Proportionality
and reasonableness of the work incu-
rred must always be at the forefront of
the mind; but ultimately, if the fee ear-
ner is to maintain control of the work in
question, then that responsibility must
be reimbursed by the client.
I do not anticipate that with the
increase of fixed fee cases
following Lord Jackson’s reforms that
outsourcing will reduce, nor do I
envisage the paying party accepting
the underlying principles of fee earning
work.
It is clear that to remain economical to
the business model and to ensure that
the client is always provided with the
best service they can that fee earner’s
will need to outsource work in a number
and variety of ways to maximise their
time and base costs. It is therefore ad-
visable that where there is an agent that
has specific expertise and knowledge,
and to utilise the same would be to
benefit the client and maximise profit
costs, that the fee earner delegate such
work in the future.
At R Costings we endeavour to fo-
llow the principles laid down in Smith
Graham and Crane to ensure that our
clients’ profits are maximised as best as
possible. If you require any further ad-
vice about potential outsourcing or the
details on the best way to benefit from
delegation to agencies for inclusion
within the recovery of costs then get in
touch with one of the team.
Kate Mack
Law Costs Draftsman
kate@rcostings.co.uk

Costs
Budgeting
“There are many more complex and less obvious pitfalls
to the budgeting process than neglecting
to file a Budget by deadline…”
(this budget will therefore be very high
and subject to possible reductions at
CMC) or a budget based on how it is
anticipated the case will progress with
tightly drawn assumptions on that basis
(this budget will have to be monitored
religiously once approved and the
receiving party will need to re-
turn to their opponent and if ne-
cessary the Court if those
assumptions are breached).
This decision is merely one of many
tactical considerations in the complex
process of preparing a Costs Budget,
and practitioners eschew the input of
costs specialists in the process (both
of drafting and advocating at the CMC)
at their peril – There are many more
complex and less obvious pitfalls to the
budgeting process than neglecting to
file a Budget by deadline…
Paul Kay
Head of Budgeting,
Paul.Kay@rcostings.co.uk
Much of the recently publicised case
law apparently about the new Costs
Budgeting regime has not concerned
itself with the real substance of the
process; which is how will Judges and
Masters be assessing Budgets at initial
CMC’s and how can Claimants draw
budgets, and advocate at CMC’s to
ensure the most beneficial outcome?
Whilst practitioners are rightly
concernedabout case law like the
widely circulated first instance decision
in the Andrew Mitchell “plebgate” case
this judgement, although concerning a
costs budget, is really about the stricter
“blood on the floor” application of the
new post April CPR3.9.
We are now starting to see, however,
judgements concerning the reduction of
receiving parties budgets at CMC’s.
The decision in CRM TRADING LTD v
CHUBB ELECTRONIC SECURITY
LTD (2013) provides encouragement
in that it states that Judges should take
a cautious approach when reducing
Costs Budgets (notwithstanding that
the budget in that case was reduced).
This is offset by reports of Master Cook
slashing a Clinical Negligence budget
on a liability admitted Cerebral Palsy
claim from £1m to circa £430k.
Having had the benefit of a
personal discussion in which I received
Master Cook’s manifestly erudite views
on Costs Budgeting as long ago as
February 2013 it is clear he is not among
those apocryphal “regional District
Judges” who practitioners worry will
be considering budgets with limited
training and therefore understanding of
the issues, so his reductions would not
have been without reason.
In our conversation, Master Cook
stressed to me the importance of a pro-
perly drafted set of contingencies and/or
assumptions and stated a budget co-
ming before him without them was the
budget of a party who didn’t understand
the process. There is a very real and
case specific tactical decision to be
made as to hether to prepare a bud-
get which deals with every contingency
Legal Costs
11

12
Information Technology
In a former role, I once had the dubious honour of attempting to teach a new partner, a peer of
the realm, how to use his new laptop, only to be dismissed with a wave and the words “I’ve had
one of those things at the ‘Lords for over four years… and I’ve never turned it on!”
Law firms, on the whole, are not be renowned for being ‘early adopters’ when it comes to technology. That said, even by our
own standards the pace at which the legal sector appears to be adopting cloud-based services appears comparitively to be
a little, well… Slow. On paper, bottom-line savings in support, software and hardware costs alone make the move to a Cloud
based infrastructure a very attractive proposition – so why aren’t more firms converting to the cloud?
C l o u d e d
Judgements
Why is the Legal Sector still so reluctant to
commit to cloud based I.T. services?
Public, Private, or Hybrid?
Despite appearances, cloud services aren’t really as
complicated as you might think. In much the same way that
many firms outsource the I.T. support services for all their
hardwareandsoftware,theCloudofferstheopportunitytotake
this a step further and outsource each of the other elements
that make up a firm’s technological infrastructure, making
maintenance, upgrades, administration and replacement -
‘someone else’s problem’.
Files, emails and software programmes are hosted on ser-
vers owned and operated by a cloud services provider, on
their premises. All you need to access them, is a robust,
secure, high speed internet connection capable of handling
all the data your users will be pulling across it.
To help reduce costs, server disc space can be segmen-
ted to allow more than one of the hosts clients to ‘share’
a working server this is what’s refe-
rred to as a ‘Public’ cloud. A Public cloud is
usually used to store less sensitive information.
‘Private’ cloud refers to a server completely dedicated to use
by one hosting customer only. Typically more expensive than
the public option it is often used for more
sensitive data.

A ‘Hybrid’ cloud refers to an
infrastructure which utilises a
mixture of these two options.
Between them the three solutions
mean there’s no need to maintain
expensive servers in house, which
require regular replacement,
electricity, air conditioning, software,
upgrades, anti-virus, security patches
and regular maintenance.
No need to worry about your network
admin taking a holiday. No need for
expensive training in order to maintain
technical qualifications or pay
for new Qualifications when the
operating system gets upgraded.
The cloud offers the chance to
outsource all of those heada-
ches whilst taking advantage of the
savings made available through
economies of scale and re-
ductions in support costs. Our
investigations indicate we could save
up to 60% by developing our next
generation infrastructure in the cloud,
compared to continuing to develop a
more traditional infrastructure.
Suddenly, advanced security and bu-
siness continuity solutions that have
previously been prohibitively
expensive, become attainable.
Security
Some quarters cite a greater need
for confidentiality and security of
data within the legal sector as being
amongst the main reasons for its
sluggish uptake. Despite a lot of hype,
the legal sector is not unique in this
regard. Data loss or a breach of security
could prove catastrophic in any sector,
given the right data and circumstance.
Such an argument pre-supposes that a
cloud-based solution is less secure than
a traditional infrastructure. For many
firms, particularly small-to-medium
sized firms, this is just not true. Cloud
services could in fact offer smaller firms
access to security features they may
otherwise never be able to afford.
There are many firms for whom it is
true that conforming to the various
demands of the SRA, the Data
Protection Act in the U.K. and
the E.U. as well as (for some)
the U.S. Patriot Act, could
cause a severe headache – though
their various obstacles are not
insurmountable. For those of us with
interests purely within the UK, ensuring
that our data will be hosted in the U.K.
(or at least within the EEA) in accessi-
ble data centres with clearly establis-
hed Service Level Agreements (SLA’s)
and industry standard guaranteed upti-
me, should be enough to satisfy requi-
rements.
(Indecently, given the combination of
the Edward Snowden affair and last
year’s U.K. government figures showing
that the Ministry of Defence was res-
ponsible was over 50% of all I.T. Hard-
ware losses in 2012 – Cloud Providers
may want to revise their blanket offe-
ring of “Military Grade” security as the
benchmark for these types of services!)
Insecurity
If you are an I.T. Manager who
maintains an in-house support team
rather than outsourcing your support -
cloud based solutions could well mean
a significant reduction in the size of
that team. Combined with a reduction
in the budget required to maintain an
outsourced infrastructure, this could
also go some way to explaining the
reticence of some I.T. Managers or
CTO’s to look at the cloud too closely.
During R Costings’ due-diligence exer-
cise, one potential provider went as
far as to offer me a solution that would
leave me with “just enough black boxes
and flashing lights on site that you can
still justify your position”. Clearly there’s
a little insecurity out there.
There is plenty of work for a the I.T.
Manager managing a cloud based
infrastructure that balances the ne-
eds of a an evolving business with the
demands of the SRA Code of Conduct,
Tony Wheeler
I.T. Manager, R Costings
Tony@rcostings.co.uk
Cloud Code
Public Cloud:
The cheapest way of hosting
data and applications. Despite
the name, your data is secure
from public access, but
resources such as servers
may be shared with other
subscribers.
Private Cloud:
More expensive solution as
resources are dedicated
exclusively to hosting and
processing your data.
Hybrid Cloud:
A mix of both Public and Private
Cloud. Core data is usually sto-
red in the private cloud and less
essential services in the public
cloud.
SaaS - Software as a service
PaaS - Platform as a service
IaaS - Infrastructure as a
service
HaaS - Hardware as a service
EaaS - Everything as a service
13

Paul Reason,
14
(...Continued)
regardless of where the servers are
kept or who’s keeping them.
It’s not the size of your team or your
budget, it’s what you do with them that
counts.
With fewer resources to
manage (be they hardware or
human), the focus of an I.T.
Manager migrating to the cloud
will likely shift towards developing
relationships not only internally,
ensuring the infrastructure con-
tinues to satisfy the needs of
the business, but also externa-
lly, working to build an ever closer
relationship with cloud service
providers.
A good working relationship with
providers is key in addressing the final
obstacle covered in this article.
Loss of Control
Loss of control of data is a real concern
when it comes to complying with both
the Data Protection act with regards to
safe harbour and the SRA, who require
access for data inspection, not to men-
tion a timely co-operative response to
enquiries.
It is possible to maintain a healthy
level of control and accessibility of
data. Written agreements to have data
kept within the UK at all times are a
must, but much relies on the choice of
provider within whom a huge level of
trust must be placed.
As part of R Costings’ due
diligence exercise in sourcing a cloud
hosting provider, we have drawn
up a shortlist of requirements that
helped us identify a host capable of
meeting each of the challenges
mentioned here, and more.
In the next edition of Inside Law, I’ll
share that shortlist and the details of the
decision making process in
the hope that it might prove
useful to other law firms facing similar
challenges.
If you can’t wait until then, I’ll post it on
our blog in the coming weeks at:
http://legalcosts.rcostings.co.uk/
Subscribe to our newsletter for notifica-
tion of its posting:
http://bit.ly/RcNeWs
Meanwhile, I’d recommend the SRA’s
“SilverLinings” report into “Cloud
Computing, Law Firms & Risk” as
further reading:
http://bit.ly/SRASilva

Hourly rates advice on
recommended charged rates.
CFAs reviewing, drafting and amending.
Funding recommendations of
appropriate types of funding.
Preparing for Provisional Detailed Assessments.
Budgeting for both internal reporting and clients needs.
Assisting with advice/budgeting for funders/insurers.
BTE/CFA/discounted CFA / success fee / ATE other the
forms of funding.
Preparation of detailed interim schedules/on account
bills to clients.
Drafting N251s.
Defending or drafting Applications for Costs
capping.
Interlocutory issues and advice upon drafting of
Court Documents and Orders.
Drafting and advising upon Statements of Costs.
Costs Budgeting.
Fast, detailed and accurate Schedules of Costs to
date (within 24 hours).
Estimates to Trial.
Pre Trial/Joint Settlement meeting/Round Table mee-
ting.
Fast detailed and accurate of Costs to date.
Estimates to Trial and advice on reasonable settlement
parameters.
R Costings offer advice and assistance at
all stages of the claim to ensure that you
maximise your costs recovery and profit.
• Drafting Bills, Costs Budgets, Points of
Dispute,Points of Reply and Skeleton
Arguments and any Applications.
• Conducting all negotiations
with the paying party and own
insurers, Counsel.
• Conducting advocacy at any
costs related hearings
nationwide.
• Assisting with estimates,
statements and budgets during
the substantive litigation.
Contact Us Today
for Further Information:
info@rcostings.co.uk
0 1 4 8 0 4 6 3 4 9 9
w w w. r c o s t i n g s . c o . u k
STAGE ONE
STAGE TWO
STAGE THREE
STAGE FOUR
STAGE FIVE

Community Focus
Sports Connections Foundation (SCF)
is managed by current and former professio-
nal sportsmen who are committed to helping
educate children in fun and practical ways, using
sport to teach about global citizenship, hardship and
poverty that other children face throughout the
world.
SCF are R Costings’ chosen charity and
we are proud to support them and their
initiatives such as ProKick and Sporting Wishes.
SCF Co-Founder Richard Philp was kind enough
to drop by the R Costings office and spend some of
his valuable time bringing me up to speed on their
latest endeavours.
Richard
Richard
Richard
RCostings
RCostings
RCostings
So, Richard, you travelled to Malawi
earlier this year, I understand it was an
experience you found particularly moving.
Why Malawi, and what are you hoping to
achieve there?
Malawi is one of the least developed countries in the world,
with three-quarters living below the international poverty line,
surviving on less than 85 pence per day. Almost half the
children under the age of 5 suffer from chronic
malnourishment. More than 550,000 children have lost one of
both of their parents to HIV and AIDS.
However, through all of that the people of Malawi love sport,
and we heard of an orphanage that we could partner, and de-
velop the country’s first sporting academy. We are in the pro-
cess of developing the academy, which will include a feeding
programme for the orphans, as well as medical check-ups
and well-being education.
Up until now all your initiatives and support have been
in the UK, it must be a challenge for you to begin building
support for work on another continent? I saw your posts on
Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SCF4kids) and Twitter
(@scf4kids) appealing for materials, pens, notebooks, toys
for you to deliver on your trip. How else can others help and
get involved?
The beauty of projects in third world countries is just how
much our money can provide for them. The plan is to
make the SCF Sports Academy self-sustainable. Howe-
ver, the initial few years will take plenty of funding, equi-
pment and volunteers - so help in any of those areas
would be very welcome! We are taking some volunteers
out in May 2014 if anyone reading would be interested?
*Checks Calendar*
Another new initiative this year has involved making the
‘Sporting Wishes’ of seriously ill children become a reality.
What wishes have you made come true lately?
Anyone who recently watched the England v Germany fixture
at Wembley stadium will have seen a couple of kids that we
had created their “Sporting Wish”. Charlie and Todd, have
were both diagnosed with different forms of cancer back in
2008. Charlie, has had an 8lb tumour removed, which had
also engulfed one of his kidneys. Now in remission, the future
is looking very positive. Todd has Leukaemia, and has al-
ready undergone one bone marrow transplant. Sadly in 2012
they found 1 cancer cell, and in December he went back to
Bristol Hospital to undergo 3 months of isolation and some
pioneering treatment to hopefully save his life.
Both boys are massive football fans, so due to our ongoing
relationship we have built with The FA over the years, we
arranged for them to be players mascots. The feedback from
them and their families has been phenomenal. We always try
to go that extra mile, and arranged for local TV crews from
ITV, Radio Stations and Local Newspapers to interview them,
to let them know how special and amazing we feel they are
Its kids like this that should be the inspirations to thousands
of others.
The bravery and courage they show, whilst wearing a beauti-
ful smile on their face is remarkable. Our philosophy is that if
it was our own child, we would break down walls to bring hap-
piness and relief, so that’s how we react on behalf of other
parents whose children are fighting for their lives.
16

Richard
RCostings
RCostings
The craziest part of both Charlie and Todd’s stories is that
when they were admitted into hospital they each contracted
other infections which led to one nearly losing a leg, and the
other almost losing his life.
I know you’ve had individuals and teams from other
organisations volunteering and helping to raise funds by en-
tering teams in marathons and physical challenges like the
3 Peaks and of course, at R Costings we’ve enjoyed being
involved in events such as the charity celebrity football
tournament at the Emirates Stadium.
There could be someone reading this right now, who would
like to get their organisations involved in supporting your
work, what would you say to them?
Well, we are very much still in our infancy, and have ploughed
thousands of our own money into getting the charity to where
it is today.
We know there are individuals or companies who would like
to help but aren’t sure how to get involved. One simple way
is to make us as their chosen charity, and to raise funds in
whichever way possible – a coffee morning, a fun-run or so-
mething more challenging - to help fund the work we do.
Every organisation has a wonderful mix of employees that
have varied skills, and their input can enable us to do so
much more. Enabling employees to offer time or expertise
can also prove a real help.
Of course, the simplest way for companies to help is by ma-
king a donation. We have recently devised a 4-tier annual
charity partnership scheme for companies who would like to
donate funds. Each year, there are a limited number of chari-
ty partnership places within each tier.
• Platinum £10,000,
• Gold £5,000,
• Silver £2,500
• Bronze £500
In addition, if some readers have access to corporate boxes
at sporting venues or have sporting connections or know of
people who have them, which we can use to help make Spor-
ting Wishes come true, or enhance the great experiences we
offer the children we work with – that would be amazing.
Richard thanks very much for your valuable time and good
luck with your work in the future.
If you would like to support Sports Connections
Foundation, whether through donations or volunteering, or
perhaps you’d like to nominate a child in order to have their
sporting wish come true, you can find out more by visiting
their website http://www.scfoundation.org.uk/ or email
Richard@scfoundation.org.uk
17

Legal CostsGuidance
The Limitation Act 1980
As all practitioners will be aware, the
Limitation Act 1980 ‘gives the ordinary
time limits for bringing actions.’ Those
‘ordinary’ time limits can then be ‘sub-
ject to extension or exclusion in accor-
dance with [Part II of the Act].’ (section
1 of the 1980 Act).
Part I of the Act sets out the primary
limitation period for actions, effectively
by dictating a period after which a claim
‘shall not be brought’.
So, for example, ‘An action founded
on tort shall not be brought after the
expiration of six years from the date
on which the cause of action accrued.’
(section 2 of the 1980 Act).
Part II then sets out various exceptions
to the ‘primary limitation period’.
So, when considering limitation issues,
practitioners need to bear two conside-
rations in mind:
1. When does a ‘cause of action ac-
crue’ – so that ‘time starts running’;
2. What counts as the ‘bringing of
an action’ – so that it can be said
the claim is ‘brought’ with in the
relevant limitation period and ‘time
stops running’?
Limitation Issues
WhenisaClaimFormDeemedIssued?
Many claims are now being issued out of the Northampton (CCMCC) or the Salford (CCMCC)
County Courts. When ‘limitation’ is looming large in a claim, the process can be stressful and full
of uncertainty, to say the least. For example, the Court is unable to inform litigants if it has even
received the claim form to be issued for a week to 10 days after it was sent, and there are many
stories of claim forms being returned unissued for minor, or sometimes imagined, transgressions.
The purpose of this article is to provide guidance on when a claim form is issued for the purposes of the
Limitation Act 1980.
When and how a cause of action ac-
crues is, of itself, a topic worthy of a
whole book. It is beyond the scope of
this article to consider the topic in any
detail.
Instead, I will concentrate on when a
claim is ‘brought’.
When is a Claim ‘Brought’ for the
Purposes of the Limitation Act
There are two scenarios to consider.
The first is an ‘originating claim’ (my
phrase) brought by, say, an injured wor-
ker for damages for personal injury or
an aggrieved party in a contractual dis-
pute. This is the type of claim the vast
majority of Claimants bring, and the
scenario dealt with in this article.
The second scenario is ‘new claims’
brought in existing proceedings. Exam-
ples of this type of claim are: Third
Party Proceedings; the additional or
substitution of new causes of action; the
addition or substitution of a new party. I
will not deal with these. In the main,
‘new claims’ are deemed to have been
commenced on the same date as
the originating claim. The notable
exception being Third Party Procee-
dings, which are deemed to have been
brought on the date those proceedings
were commenced. Practitioners inter-
ested in this area should consider fur-
ther section 35 of the 1980 Act.
Originating Claims
The 1980 Act does not define when
a claim is ‘brought’. At first sight, this
omission seems rather strange. It has,
however, been left to the rules of Court
to determine when a claim is ‘brought’.
CPR 7.2 states that,
1. Proceedings are started when
the court issues a claim form
at the request of the Claimant;
2. A claim form is issued on the date
entered on the form by the Court.
The failure to use the word ‘brought’ by
the rule makers is unfortunate. Howe-
ver, the intention is clear. The claim is
‘brought’ when it is issued because that
it when proceedings are ‘started’.
So, ostensibly, a claim is ‘brought’ on
the day it is issued by the Court and
‘time stops running’ then.
However, there is an exception to this in
cases where limitation is an issue.
Paragraph 5 of Practice Direction
7A states, so far as relevant:
5.1…where the claim form as issued
was received in the court office on a
date earlier than the date on which it
was issued by the court, the claim is
18

Simon Brindle
Barrister
9 Gough Square
“brought” for the purposes of the Limi-
tation Act 1980 and any other relevant.
5.2 The date on which the claim form
was received by the court will be recor-
ded by a date stamp either on the claim
form held on the court file or on the
letter that accompanied the claim form
when it was received by the court…
So, a claimant is ‘safe’ if the claim form
was not issued in time, provided it was
received in the Court Office before ‘time
ran out.’
But does the court need to date stamp
the claim form or covering later for time
to stop running? On one reading of the
practice direction, it does.
However, in Barnes v St Helens
MBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1372,
Tuckey LJ gave guidance on the mea-
ning of ‘brought’. He stated that a claim
is brought for the purposes of the 1980
Act when the ‘claimant ‘brings’ his claim
form to the court with a request that it
be issued’ to the Court Office. There is
no ‘transaction’ that must take place; all
the Claimant need do is a unilateral act:
the claim form simply has to be ‘delive-
red to the Court’.
It is therefore the unilateral act of a ‘re-
quest’ to issue the claim form that is of
key significance. That request need
not be acknowledged by the Court.
Provided the request is made within
the limitation period, the Defendant will
have no ‘limitation defence’. Since the
‘request’ is made when the claim form
is received by the Court, the stamping
of the claim form is irrelevant.
So, what happens if the Court lo-
ses the claim form and no stamp
applied?
That happened in Page and another
v Hewetts Solicitors and another
[2012] EWCA Civ 805. When hearing
a second appeal against the grant of
summary judgment in the favour of the
Defendants, the Court of Appeal held
that a party should not be prejudiced
by the shortcomings of the Court (fo-
llowed the principles established in Aly
v Aly (1984) 81 LSG 283 and Riniker
v University College London (The Ti-
mes, April 17, 1999) in the process).
It was held that, if the party can prove
on the balance of probabilities that they
delivered the claim form with a request
that it be issued within the limitation
period, the proceedings would have be
‘brought’ in time.
Note, though, that the ‘exception’ only
applies to issues to be determined un-
der the 1980 Act. This was emphasi-
sed by the Court of Appeal in Salford
City Council v Garner [2004] EWCA
Civ 364. In that case, the issue was
when proceedings had been begun for
the purposes of the Housing Act 1996.
The Court held that that was the date of
issue of the claim form, not the date the
claim form was received by the Court.
It is good practice, therefore, for prac-
titioners to keep a careful record of the
date on which claim forms are sent to
the Court for issue. If limitation is likely
to be an issue, I would suggest that the
claim form be sent recorded delivery or
similar. However, provided it can be
demonstrated that the claim form was
received by the Court within the limita-
tion period, that will be sufficient for the
claim to have been ‘brought’ in time.
19

Inside Law 7

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Inside Law 7

Similar to Inside Law 7 (11)

Inside Law 7