The document summarizes key topics in the summer issue of Inside Law, a quarterly magazine about the law industry. It discusses: 1) Recent court cases that identify avoidable errors in costs, such as overuse of experts or underestimating expert fees in budgets. 2) Guidance from a Court of Appeal case on preparing precise, selective witness statements to control costs. 3) The need to carefully consider whether an advocate like a silk is justified given a case's complexity, value, and potential for costs challenges. 4) The importance of asking at every step if what you're proposing is reasonable to stay safe under the new proportionality standards.

1. INSIDE LAW
ISSUE 6 - Summer 2013
THE QUARTERLY MAGAZINE FOR THE LAW INDUSTRY
Controlling Costs
(Dominic Regan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Controlling Client Costs
(Sarah Page-croft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6
It’s time to fight back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
ABI Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Costs in the Court
of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
Published by:
Controlling Claimant Costs
through the new EL/ PL
Portal
In this issue
COSTINGSLAW COSTS DRAFTSMEN & CONSULTANTS
Controlling Costs
Post-Jackson
Professor Dominic Reagan
Sarah Page-Croft

2. 2
Clarity at Last!
For cases that do not go beyond
Provisional Assessment, the £1500.00
allowance acts as a cap on recovery of
Party/Party costs and quite rightly
excludes the court fee, which alone can
be as much as £980 not to forget VAT.
Amendments have been made to the
CPR coming into force 1st October 2013.
Costs Budgets are still a hot topic and
conversations are held daily with clients
and prospective clients who wish to
receive guidance and advice. Please,
please, please instruct your Costs
Lawyer/Draftsman in plenty of time to
ensure matters are not rushed. Ideally as
soon as matters have been issued, which
gives an ample window for the exercise to
be carried out and it is a must that
Solicitor client and Costs Lawyer confer in
order that they work as a team. There is
much thought to be given to budgets and
crucial assumptions to be made, Counsel
and experts are all to be involved in the
process in stating their reasonable fees.
The costs budgeting regime was thrown
into the spotlight again with the firm
representing Andrew Mitchell MP in his
Libel action ‘plebgate’, failed to submit
a costs budget in time. Failure to get a
budget in seven days before the case
management conference limited the
budget to court fees only. Be warned!
No longer can budgets be prepared on
short notice, timing is the key.
With August almost over as I write, and
with emails met with I am on annual
leave and will revert when I return to the
office, it has given us the opportunity in
our office to surface and take a deep
breath, ready for the influx of Budgets
expected from September onwards.
Should you wish to know more about
our Budgeting service, please feel free to
call our offices and speak with either
Paul Kay or myself who will be happy to
talk things through with you or
alternatively email addresses as below.
Enjoy your read.
Paul@rcostings.co.uk
Paul.kay@rcostings.co.uk
Paul Reason
Costs Lawyer and
Managing Director.
Welcome to
Inside Law
Things have changed and times are different.There is to be greater scrutiny of costs
than ever before. Oddly, a series of recent cases identify avoidable errors. Equally,
if you are the paying party then these represent useful arguments to throw at the
other side.
1. No matter how glamorous your expert, do not have them in court for the
entirety of the hearing unless there is something monumental about the case.
In ELVANITE FULL CIRCLE LTD V AMEC (2013) EWHC 1643 (TCC) Coulson
J rightly declared that it was completely unnecessary and so unsustainable for
one expert to attend every day of the trial. Do ask yourself if a case warrants
an expert at all. In lower value cases there is now a real temptation for Judges
to foist a single joint expert upon the parties since one expert ought to be
cheaper than two.
2. The ELVANITE decision is also well worth reading because the Judge gives
guidance on when it might be just to vary a court budget. Critically, he says
at paragraph 54 of the transcript that it is no good reason to adjust the
numbers where they had “woefully underestimated the experts’ fees”. I have
no financial interest here but, frankly, i think it bonkers to draw a budget
without some input, great or small, from your chosen costs lawyer.
3. Finally, ELVANITE states at paragraph 50 that, post Jackson, “questions of
prejudice are likely to be much less relevant than they were before”. Exactly.
No one should think that they can now escape punishment for breaching the
Rules just because it does not directly damage their opponent. The new
thinking is that Rules are there to be obeyed and to default is a wrong in itself.
4. Anyone preparing witness statements should be much more precise and
selective than ever before. In NICHOLLS V LADBROKES (2013) EWCA
Civ.1963 Lord Justice Jackson gave some, as ever, superb guidance which every
defendant should take to heart. ”The defence of any personal injury case is a
serious task, to be undertaken in a fair and responsible manner. It is
inappropriate to serve witness statements which refute every allegation, whether
right or wrong “(at para.69). He continued “the vast majority of personal injury
actions settle before trial on the basis of the written evidence served. Therefore
the written evidence matters, even if a party knows that it will abandon certain
points in the event of a trial” (para.70). Because of unsatisfactory conduct in
this regard the winning defendant lost 20% of all costs.
5. The cost of Counsel is an integral part of the litigation spend. Having watched
the modest legend that is HHJ Simon Brown QC in the budgeting pilot, you
and your clients now need to decide whether the proposed advocate is
justified. Do we need a silk? Is this the right person for the job having regard
to complexity, content and potential value? If a decision is taken that you
suspect might ultimately be challenged then make a contemporaneous note
for the file setting out your justification. It can do no harm.
6. It might sound trite but I believe that every litigator will be safer if, at every
step along the litigation path, they ask themselves whether what they are
proposing to do is reasonable. Different people may come up with different
replies but that is now the simple, sensible litmus test.
7. No one, not even Sir Rupert, knows what proportionality means today. That
is a question to be answered by the Court Of Appeal. I suggest that keeping a
watchful eye on the relationship between damages and costs will probably
be your smartest move to avoid trouble .
Dominic Regan is, with Jef Zindani, the co -author of ‘ Surviving Jackson ‘July 2013
published by Sun at £100.
Controlling
Costs
Professor
Dom Regan
The leading expert in
the field of civil
procedure and adviser to
the top judiciary on law
reform

3. Each day in the UK, three people
are paralysed
through
spinal cord
injury.
With your support
SIA can help rebuild full,
active, independent
and happy lives…
…because life needn’t stop
when you’re paralysed
What we do…
SIA represents the interest of spinal cord
injured people, helping each individual
reach their potential after injury
by providing essential services and
publications. One of our key services
is our Community Peer Support Team.
This service provides support to spinal cord
injured people and their families in District
General Hospitals.
R Costings are proud to support…
SIA member at home with her son
Fundraising Events Calendar
Members of the Community Peer Support Team
3
For more information on SIA visit:
www.spinal.co.uk
or call us on 0845 678 6633

4. F
ocusing on the new portal, this will be implemented from
the 31st July 2013. It will be accompanied by a separate
and slightly more generous Fixed Recoverable Costs
regime (FRC) for cases falling out of the portal. The
Government wants to ensure that costs outside the portal are
controlled as efficiently as costs within.
For the time being, EL Disease claims which fall out of the portal
will not be subject to FRC, the old costs regime should be
followed. EL Disease claims which remain within the portal
system, where liability is admitted, will be subject to the fixed
portal costs.
Given that disease claims which fall out of the portal go into
standard costs, the definition of disease will be important going
forward. It is important to ensure that claims are not run outside
the portal on the grounds that they are disease claims only to
settle and be awarded portal costs on the grounds that the claim
was not, after all, a disease claim. Disease means:
“a disease that the claimant is alleged to have contracted as a
consequence of the employer’s breach of statutory or common law duties
of care in the course of the employee’s employment, other than a physical
or psychological injury caused by an accident or other single event”
Where a claim arises from an EL or PL accident which occurred
on or after the end of July 2013, the claim will proceed through
the new portal. Disease claims are slightly different in that these
claims will proceed through the portal if notification of a claim
is given on or after the end of July 2013.
WHEN THE PORTAL DOES NOT APPLY
The portal does not apply to claims where, if proceedings were
issued, the small claims track would be the normal track.
However, in circumstances where the Claimant believed that the
claim was worth over £1,000.00 but then subsequently it
transpires that the value of the claim is less than £1,000.00, the
Claimant is entitled to Stage 1 fixed portal costs and, if relevant,
Stage 2 fixed portal costs.
The portal will cease to apply if the Claimant notifies the
Defendant that the claim has been re-valued at greater than
£25,000.00. Claims which no longer continue under the portal
cannot subsequently re-enter the process.
The portal does not apply to claims where the Claimant or
Defendant acts as personal representative of a deceased person,
or where the Claimant or Defendant is a protected party. The
portal does not apply in PL claims where the Defendant is an
individual; where the Claimant is bankrupt or where the
Defendant is bankrupt and there is no identifiable insurer. The
portal does not apply in disease claims with more than one
Defendant; for a personal injury arising from an accident which
occurred outside England and Wales; for damages in relation to
harm, abuse or neglect of or by children or vulnerable adults. The
portal does not apply to claims for clinical negligence or
mesothelioma.
As can be seen from the above tables (click the image to
download), FRC are more generous than fixed portal costs. It is
therefore important to be aware of when/ how claims fall out of
the portal and into FRC.
In response to its consultation on Solving Disputes in the
County Court, the Government committed to extend the
current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Personal Injury scheme
vertically, by including claims up to a value of £25,000.00, and
horizontally, by including Employers Liability (EL) and Public
Liability (PL) claims up to a value of £25,000.00 (on a full
liability basis including pecuniary losses but excluding
interest).
Controlling Claimants Costs
Sarah Page-Croft
Law Costs Draftsman
4

5. STAGE ONE: IMPORTANT TIMESCALES AND WHEN A
CLAIM MIGHT FALL OUT OF THE PORTAL
The intention of the new portal is that Solicitors will report claims
directly via the portal to the relevant insurer rather than to the
Defendant for onward transmission. A copy of the claim will still
have to be sent to the Defendant. Obviously the onus will be on the
Claimant to identify the relevant insurer before a claim is submitted.
The Defendant will have to be ready to investigate the claim
within one working day (next day after receipt of the CNF) by
sending an electronic acknowledgement of the claim to the
Claimant.
Insurers will then have 30 working days to provide a decision
upon liability for an EL claim and 40 working days for a PL claim.
In an EL claim where liability is admitted, wages information
must be provided to the Claimant within 20 days.
Where liability is admitted, the Defendant must
pay the Stage 1 fixed portal costs, as detailed in
the table below, within 10 days after receiving the
Stage 2 Settlement Pack. If the Defendant fails to
pay, the Claimant may give written notice that the
claim will no longer continue in the portal. The
Claimant has 10 days after the expiry of the
period to send such notice.
Claims will fall out of the portal at this stage if the
Defendant considers that inadequate mandatory
information has been provided in the CNF; if the
Defendant alleges contributory negligence; if the
Defendant does not send the CNF response or if
the Defendant denies liability.
STAGE TWO: IMPORTANT TIMESCALES AND
WHEN A CLAIM MIGHT FALL OUT OF THE
PORTAL
The Claimant has 15 days from the date of the
Claimant approving the medical or expert report
to send to the Defendant the Stage 2 Settlement
Pack. The Defendant then has 35 days to consider
the Stage 2 Settlement Pack (the total consideration
period). An extension can be agreed.
Claims will fall out of the portal at this stage if
the Defendant gives notice to the Claimant
within the consideration period that they
consider that, if proceedings were issued, the
small claims track would be the normal track; if
the Defendant withdraws their admission of
liability within the consideration period; if the
Defendant does not respond within the initial
consideration period or when an offer is
withdrawn after the total consideration period.
It should be noted that where the value of the claim for
damages is more than £10,000.00 and an advice is reasonably required
to value the claim from a specialist Solicitor or Counsel, then the fixed
portal costs as set out in the first table below can include an additional
amount (CPR 45.23B).
TIMESCALES WITHIN THE PORTAL
The period for response starts the first business day after the
information was sent. The period for response can be varied by
agreement except for the 30/40 day period for liability decisions
and except for the rule specified at paragraph 7.34 of the Pre-
Action Protocol for EL/PL claims – “Where a party makes an offer
5 days or less before the end of the total consideration period,
there will be a further period of 5 days after the end of the total
consideration period for the relevant party to consider that offer”.
through the new EL/ PL Portal
5
Legal Representatives Fixed Costs for Claims Within the RTA and EL/PL Protocols
Claims of £1k - £10k Claims of £10k - £25k
Stage 1 Stage 2 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Total
RTA
Claims
£200 £300 £500 £200 £600 £800
EL/PL
Claims
£300 £600 £900 £300 £1,300 £1,600
Legal Representatives Fixed Recoverable Costs for RTA, EL & PL Claims
Falling Out of the RTA and EL/PL Protocols
Settles Pre issue
£1,000-
£5,000
Settles Pre issue
£5,001-
£10,000
Settles Pre issue
£10,001-
£25,000
Settles
Post issue
Pre-
Allocation
Settles
Post-
Allocation
Pre-listing
Settles
Post-
listing
Pre-trial
Trial
Advocacy
Fee
Road Traffic Accident
Fixed
Costs
Greater of £550 or
£100 + 20% of
Damages
£1,100
+ 15% of
Damages over £5k
£1,930
+10% of Damages
over £10k
£1,160
+ 20% of
Damages
£1,880
+ 20% of
Damages
£2,655
+ 20% of
Damages
£500 (to £3,000)
£710 (£3-10,000)
£1,070
(£10-15,000)
£1,705
(£15,000+)
Employers Liability
Fixed
Costs
£950
+17.5% of
Damages
£1,855
+12.5% of
Damages
over £5k
£2,500
+10% of
Damages
over £10k
£2,630
+ 20% of
Damages
£3,350
+ 25% of
Damages
£4,280
+ 30% of
Damages
£500 (to £3,000)
£710 (£3-10,000)
£1,070
(£10-15,000)
£1,705
(£15,000+)
Public Liability
Fixed
Costs
£950
+17.5% of
Damages
£1,855
+10% of
Damages
over £5k
£2,370
+ 10% of
Damages
Over £10k
£2,450
+17.5% of
Damages
£3,065
+22.5% of
Damages
£3,790
+27.5% of
Damages
£500 (to £3,000)
£710 (£3-10,000)
£1,070
(£10-15,000)
£1,705
(£15,000+)
Don’t forget Disbursements on top – CPR 45.19.
If the Claimant resides, and you practice in, the County Court districts listed in CPD 2.6 supplementing CPR 45 – an
additional 12.5% on the fixed costs in the second table is recoverable.
The figures above are net of VAT.

6. 6
ESCAPING THE PORTAL ALTOGETHER
It is attractive from a costs perspective to obtain evidence which
realistically values a claim at over £25,000.00 at the outset to
escape the portal altogether. Consideration should be given to
subrogated claims for loss of earnings or medical treatment at or
before the CNF stage as the inclusion of these may boost the value
of the claim to over £25,000.00 and therefore out of the portal.
However, if a Claimant reasonably (emphasis added) believes the
claim to be worth more than £25,000.00, and pursues the claim
outside the portal, but then subsequently settles the claim for less,
is the Claimant still entitled to non-portal costs?
It is clear that where a Claimant unreasonably removes a claim
from the portal, only portal costs are recoverable. Paragraph 7.59
of the new EL/PL protocol provides that where a court considers
that a Claimant acted unreasonably in serving notice that the
claim was unsuitable for the portal it will award no more than
portal costs. There is recent case law to support this.
In Uppal v. Daudia LTLPI 09/07/12 the Claimant removed the
claim from the portal because the Defendant failed to make an
offer in response to the Claimants counter-offer within the total
consideration period. The Judge held that there was no such
requirement. The Defendant need only respond to the Claimants
first offer within the initial consideration period. The Claimant
was found to have unreasonably left the portal and was ordered
to pay the Defendants costs on an indemnity basis.
In Jaykishan Patel v. Fortis Insurance Ltd LTL 11/01/12(11) the
Defendant was unable to send an acknowledgement to the CNF
due to a technical fault with the software used. However, within
48 hours of the CNF the Defendant had responded with a full
response admitting liability. On the same day, the Claimant
removed the claim from the portal. The Claimant’s conduct was
found to be unreasonable because technical non-compliance with
the portal was not a ground for removing a claim from the portal.
The Claimant was restricted to portal costs.
These cases should be viewed as a clear warning to Claimant
Solicitors not to unreasonably remove cases from the portal. You
should therefore familiarise yourself with the new portal rules
which can be found in The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.6)
Rules 2013.
Finally, it should be further noted that if there are exceptional
circumstances the Court can consider a claim for an amount of
costs greater than the FRC set out in the second table below and
summarily assess the costs or make an order for the costs to be
subject to detailed assessment. However, if costs are assessed at a
sum less than 20% greater than the amount of FRC, then only
FRC or the assessed costs (whichever is the lesser of the two) will
be awarded.
Sarah Page-Croft is a Law Costs Draftsman with R
Costings, specialising in the drafting of personal injury
bills funded by way of CFA’s, CCFA’s and legal expenses
insurance. She has represented both Claimants and
Defendants in cost negotiations and has attended detailed
assessment hearings.
About The Author...
W
ith a Civil costs war looming, I must question why
we have overhauled the litigation funding landscape
when Lord Justice Jackson’s own report states that
only 10% of claims were disproportionate (the remedy
ironically seems disproportionate to the problem).
Further I must question could we, as lawyers, have done more to
prevent this? What did we achieve with our papers, petitions and
judicial review? The answer is next to nothing, as they fell on deaf
ears. The biggest impact of the reforms will be on the personal
injury industry and only the large firms, who make small profit
margins over high volumes of cases, will survive. Save for the large
firms the personal injury industry is on the ropes, unsteady on its
feet staring into a blurry abyss, just waiting for a knockout punch
(which might be delivered in raising the small claims limit). So
the real question is what do we do now? And the answer is that it
is time for an Ali style rope a dope.
We have lost the CFA argument with the government so we need
to focus on the stopping the small claims limit being raised and
ensuring that fixed costs are not introduced into the fast track.
Our methods of lobbying with papers and petitions have not
worked so we need to take a new approach and (credit where
credit is due) I am grateful to a Partner of a large PI firm for this
suggestion: we need to educate the people. The large PI firms need
to work together and lobby the government through television
commercials and public debates. We need to use the media to
communicate a message and dispel the idea, created by the
tabloids, of greedy fat cat lawyers.
Further, we need to be truthful in our campaigns. State that we will
be paid x for x amount of hours work and quite simply we will not
undertake that work as the proposed fees do not provide sufficient
remuneration. The public are not fools and they know that when
we are arguing about access to justice we are doing so because it
affects our own pocket. But what they do not know is how much
we are paid, for these cases, and if they were to know their
perception would change. The other benefit of this approach is that
it would surprise the government. They can ignore our petitions and
papers but they would not be able to ignore a public campaign.
Our current lobbying techniques are archaic and we need to adapt
and, most importantly, we need to change the public’s perception.
Christopher McCauley
Barrister, Guildford Chambers
Chris specialises in costs and litigation funding and is Counsel at
Guildford Chambers. Prior to becoming Costs Counsel, Chris worked
as a Solicitor Advocate (Civil) in the advocacy department of a large
national personal injury firm. He regularly conducts detailed
assessments in the Senior Courts Costs Office and in County Courts.
E: CMcCauley@guildfordchambers.com
It’s time to
fight back

7. 7
ABI Statement
I
recently read a quote from Mr Dalton of the
ABI, on the litigation futures website that
stated ‘it is time we had an open and honest
debate about whether a minor low speed shunt
in a supermarket car park resulting in a sore
neck for a couple of days justifies thousands of
pounds in compensation. But it needs to be a
grown up debate: with analysis rather than
anecdotes and evidence rather than emotion.
Whatever the outcome, insurers will provide
the agreed level of compensation to Claimants
and build that into car insurance premiums.’
Before turning to the points raised by Mr Dalton
I would like to state the following: for too long
our industries have been at loggerheads and
rather than tear strips off each other I have better
suggestion. Let’s put our cards on the table and
be honest. I have a mixed practice of Claimant
and Defendant work and sometimes (but not
often) I see claims where the costs are
extortionate for the matter they relate to.
However Defendants, in my opinion, often
undervalue claims due, largely, to an
unwillingness to depart from what Collosus tells
them and this causes unnecessary costs to be
incurred. If the small claims limit is increased it
will, most likely, cripple the PI industry and the
area of law will stagnate as the best lawyers will
be driven out. Further, in my opinion, an
independent computer system generating the
quantification of awards will undercompensate
people with genuine claims as it will fail to take
account of the specific facts of the case.
At present the insurance industry is throwing
money away. For example by sending Defendant
Counsel to infant approvals where everything is
agreed. Ignoring their Solicitor, and Counsel,
when they are telling the insurance company’s
case handler that the offer is insufficient and they
will lose at trial. Therefore, rather than continue
to mudsling why do we not try to act responsibly
and work together? Lawyers are not actuaries and
cannot advise you on the level of your premiums,
or your business model, but we can point out to
you where you are wasting money. Rather than
go to war, over raising the small claims limit, why
don’t we sit down with the insurers and explain
to them where they are wasting money
in litigation? Further a sensible step
would be for the two industries to look
at civil procedure rules and see where
the steps can be simplified to save costs.
Turning to Mr Dalton’s comments, and
my intention is not to be critical but,
the quantum relating to a sore neck for
a couple of days would be a couple of
hundred pounds, if that, not thousands
of pounds. However his suggestion of
public debates is a good idea. But, in
these debates, I would suggest that we
also look at the statistics relating to
Defendant insurers’ success rates, in
Courts, and the differences between
their first offer and the amount actually
awarded at trial. Further, let’s not ignore the law.
Stating that the system is broken and insurers
cannot afford to keep paying out to this supposed
‘compensation culture’ is not an answer to the
question: why should we treat a claim for a few
weeks differently from a claim for a year? As in
both cases the Claimant has been injured
through no fault of his own and our justice
system is compensatory i.e. fundamental to the
system is the idea wronged party, irrespective of
the value of the claim, should be put back in the
position he would have been but for the accident.
Profit is, of course, important to any business but
it is not a consideration that should outweigh the
preservation of justice.

8. 8
T
he Court Order or Direction will state whether fixed costs
or remuneration applies, or whether there is to be a
Detailed Assessment by a Costs Officer. Where a Court
Order or Direction provides for a Detailed Assessment of costs,
the Deputy may elect to take fixed costs or remuneration in lieu
of a Detailed Assessment. Where a Deputy does not elect to
take fixed costs, a Costs Lawyer needs to be instructed to
prepare a detailed Bill of Costs in respect of the General
Management costs. The overriding objective for a Deputy of the
Court of Protection, or for Solicitors advising a lay Deputy; is
to look after the interest of the Patient. Cases in this area are
growing in size and complexity and it is important that a
Deputy of the Court of Protection, or for Solicitors advising a
lay Deputy, that they receive fair and just remuneration for this
important work.
The matter of Leighanne Radcliffe, before Master O’Hare on 20
December 2004, dealt with arguments as to what could and could
not be recovered upon assessment of a Bill arising from General
Management costs. The Bill of Costs submitted was in relation to
General Management costs for the period 14 August 2002 to 13
August 2003, whereby the Provisional Assessment was not
accepted and the matter proceeded to a formal Detailed
Assessment (conducted by exchange of letters). Thereafter,
permission to Appeal was granted. The Appeal was heard before
Master O’Hare. Two aspects of the decision made by Costs Officer
Sainthouse were challenged, namely; inter- fee earner discussions
and time spent on letters said to enclose simple invoices and
payments thereof.
Turning firstly to inter-fee earner discussions, Master O’Hare
followed the principles set out as per R v Sandhu, 29 November
1984, reported in the Lord Chancellor’s Department Taxing
Compendium. He ruled that time spent with regard to
“supervision of staff with regard to the conduct of the case,
allocation of accounts, listing difficulties, use of Enquiry Agents,
evidence and other related matter should be disallowed”. He
commented at paragraph 20:
“In my judgment it is always, or almost always, inappropriate for
a claim to be made for letters sent by one fee earner to another in
the same firm. The allocation of tasks between them is part of the
irrecoverable overhead of the firm. If the senior fee earner needs
to be informed of some aspect of a matter, he should simply read
the relevant attendance note when the file is sent to him”.
Master O’Hare did however state that inter-fee earner discussions
should be allowed in a situation whereby “an unexpected turn of
events where the senior solicitor’s extra experience and weight
would be an essential reinforcement”. Deputies therefore need
to bear in mind that inter-fee earner communication which had
not added anything to the value of the legal proceedings will not
be allowed when the matter is provisionally assessed by the SCCO.
Turning to time spent on letters said to enclose simple invoices
and payments thereof, Master O’Hare gave guidance and allowed
3 minutes per letter as reasonable, stating that “where the volume
of Bill paying letters is high, I do not think it is appropriate to
apply the general 6 minute allowance to each of them”. The letters
in question are payments of bills for water bills, electricity bills,
telephone bills, satellite TV bills and the like and Master O’Hare
further stated “in making that allowance I would disallow the extra
time for generally “looking after the matter””.
A Deputy needs to record detailed contemporaneous attendance
notes when incurring time so as to maximise their costs recovery.
For example, if the case takes “an unexpected turn of events”, then
record this on the attendance note to explain why the inter-fee
Costs
Peter Jones
Costs Managerin the court of protection
At R Costings, our drafting team, consisting of Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen, specialise in drafting detailed
Bills of Costs. One of the areas we specialise is costs in the Court of Protection. Costs Lawyers can help the Court of
Protection Deputies manage their General Management costs by advising on the costs which are recoverable, whilst
recognising the often sensitive nature of these cases.

9. 9
earner discussion was recoverable in order to act in the
Patients best interests. The file of papers going to the SCCO
will be provisionally assessed by the SCCO and therefore
each and every attendance note and letter written needs to
satisfy the Deputies obligation that they are looking after the
interests of their Patient. Remember, there is no Advocate
attending the Provisional Assessment Hearing to justify the
costs that you have reasonably incurred. Another example
of this could be duplicated fee earner attendances to attend
the Patient. There may be a reasonable explanation as to why
the Deputy and a separate fee earner both attended the
Patient (behavioural problems of the Patient for example)
and therefore this needs to be highlighted on the attendance
note so as to justify these costs incurred.
Another age-old question is the rates to be applied for
General Management costs in the Court of Protection.
Master Haworth considered this in the matter of Smith (&
Others) on 20 October 2007. This case considered whether
more complex non-routine work could justify a higher
hourly rate and similarly, for routine and straightforward
cases, whether a rate lower than those prescribed by the
SCCO should apply. Upon assessment, the Defendant’s
argued that lower rates should apply due to the routine and
simplistic nature of the General Management year; however,
the Appellant argued that the rates were in accordance with
the SCCO Guideline rates and therefore should be allowed
as claimed.
Master Haworth considered the previous assessed Bills
whereby the Appellant had recovered the Guideline hourly
rates consistently over 90% of their General Management
year Bills. Master Haworth agreed with the Appellant who
stated that they were demonstrating a greater level of
responsibility, skill and expertise on both routine and
complex matters that was unseen in other legal professions
and therefore rejected the Defendant’s submission in
reducing the hourly rates to those lower than the Guideline
rates.
This case highlights that whilst hourly rates for work
undertaken in any Court of Protection will always be that of
the Costs Officer’s discretion, difficult and complex cases can
merit higher rates than the Guideline rates and should not
be reduced simply on the basis of the area of Law. Often,
clients lack capacity to manage their own affairs and make
decisions which places additional stress upon the Deputy in
acting in the Patient’s best interests. It is not only evident
that this needs to be highlighted within the file of papers
(again when making attendance notes) but also when the
Bill of Costs is drafted, reference should be made to the Seven
Pillars of Wisdom contained in CPR 44.4. Instances of this
could be the importance of matter to all parties, the
complexity of the matter and the skill, effort and specialist
knowledge required by the Deputy, particularly where a
Deputy is acting for a Patient who lacks capacity to manage
their own affairs.
Following the two cases above, it is clear that detailed,
accurate contemporaneous attendance notes need to be
drafted to justify exactly why costs have been incurred and
similarly, if the matter is of a complex nature, a succinct
narrative in the Bill of Costs to justify the hourly rates
claimed. R Costings regularly submit Bills for provisional
assessment in the Court of Protection and have knowledge
and experience of what the SCCO allow when assessing Bills.
If you are interested in utilising the services of R Costings
Limited to deal with your costs in Court of Protection, then
please do not hesitate to contact us.

10. 10
For further information on our asbestos expert witness service please call us today:
Telephone: 020 7734 6655 Email: enquiries@deriskuk.com www.deriskuk.com
ExpertWitness
inasbestos
management,
abatement&
removalcases.
Derisk provide expert-witness advice and guidance for the preparation
of preliminary pre-action expert advice reports and the preparation of
court compliant expert witness reports.
Compliant with Part 35 of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 35) and its
associated Practice Direction (PD 35).
Consultant areas:
■ Asbestos Management
■ Asbestos Abatement
■ Asbestos Removal
If your practice specializes in any of the following areas:-
• RTA
• Clinical/Medical Negligence
• Dental Negligence
• Public liability
• Employers Liability
• Occupiers Liability
• Industrial Disease
• Accident Abroad
• Sports Injuries
What could you add to our
panel of members?
mayiclaimyour personal injury specialists
Please contact us at enquiries@mayiclaim.co.uk
advising how your company could service the needs of our business.
www.mayiclaim.co.uk

11. 11
Advertising
If you would like to advertise in Inside Law then please contact us on: info@rcostings.co.uk
Free Nationwide Courier Service
R Costings offers a free courier service collecting and delivering your files securely nationwide. R Costings
currently have 4 vans and drivers who collect and deliver all over England and Wales on a daily basis
and are able to comply with any request the following working day.
Should this be of interest please do not hesitate to contact
Ginnie Marsh on 01480 463499 or ginnie@rcostings.co.uk
R Costings Services...
R Costings offer advice and assistance at all stages of the claim to ensure that you maximise your costs
recovery and profit. The following gives you an overview of when you should consider contacting us for
any assistance.
• 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.
STAGE ONE
• 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.
STAGE TWO
• 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.
STAGE THREE
• 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.
STAGE FOUR
• Fast, detailed and accurate Schedules of Costs to date (within 24 hours).
• Estimates to Trial.
STAGE FIVE
• Pre Trial/Joint Settlement meeting/Round Table meeting.
• Fast detailed and accurate of Costs to date.
• Estimates to Trial and advice on reasonable settlement parameters.
For further information, advice or to request a meeting please contact Peter Jones on 01480 463499
or pjones@rcostings.co.uk or visit our website for further information www.rcostings.co.uk

12. midlands
Corporate/Banking solicitor – Birmingham
The firm's Banking and Finance team is growing nationally, and following
an upturn in work they are looking to appoint a further experienced
banking lawyer to strengthen the team in Birmingham.
The current team are involved with all aspects of banking law including
acquisition finance and asset based finance, real estate finance as well as
social housing finance. The team act for a variety of funders, discounters,
lenders and registered providers with transactional panel positions you
would expect of a national law firm. They also deal with general corporate
banking and act for corporates and private equity houses.
To succeed in this opportunity you will need to be between 3-5yrs pqe
or equivalent and be confident and capable business developer, with
evidence of client service excellence and innovative ways of thinking. As
well as your fee-earning capabilities you will be highly driven and
enthusiastic and really have the desire to take control of your own
destiny and be part of developing a practice. This role offers superb
career progression with the opportunity to gain unbeatable experience
through quality of work and comes with an excellent remuneration
package and benefits you would expect from a national firm.
the south
Commercial/it solicitor – southampton
This UK leading firm currently seeks a mid level to senior
commercial/IT lawyer to join their team in the firm's Southampton office.
Originally seeking a talented and ambitious Ip/IT lawyer with a minimum
of 6 years pqe experience, the firm will now consider 3+pqe.
Responsibilities of the role will include drafting and negotiating a variety
of commercial agreements including: complex Ip and IT agreements,
advising on outsourcing transactions, major supply contracts and
complex commercial projects. Data protection and privacy regulation
experience will also be considered an advantage.
This is an exciting opportunity for a motivated lawyer with good
experience in a major National or London firm looking to progress their
career. The firm will offer a very competitive salary package and a
pleasant working environment in which to progress onwards to the top
of the profession.
nQ Pensions solicitor – manchester, milton Keynes, Reading,
hampshire
This Legal 500 National firm are seeking a newly qualified pensions
Solicitor. This is an exceptional opportunity for a newly qualified solicitor
looking to work for a prestigious national firm. positions are available in
Manchester, Milton Keynes, Reading and Hampshire. The successful
candidate will be involved in the full range of work undertaken by the firm's
pensions team and will have completed a seat in a pensions department
as part of their training contract.
Residential Conveyancing solicitor/associate/Partner –
Basingstoke
An exciting opportunity has arisen within the UK's largest firm of
conveyancing solicitors accredited under the Law Society’s Conveyancing
quality Scheme, handling over 7000 properties bought and sold annually.
As a result of the firm's continued success they are expanding into their
Basingstoke office and have a fantastic new opportunity for a senior level
residential conveyancer.
This position involves working with and reporting to the Department
Head/partner in developing a new team in Basingstoke to work alongside
colleagues based in Northampton. The successful candidate will take
responsibility for the recruitment, management and development of the
team, ensuring the delivery of a high quality, cost effective and focused
conveyancing service.
To succeed in this opportunity you will be a qualified solicitor offering and
able to demonstrate at least at least 10+ pqe in all aspects of residential
conveyancing, experience in managing and running conveyancing teams
in a case managed volume environment and the ability to manage and
monitor/report on budgets against target and performance.
This is an exceptional opportunity for an ambitious individual looking to take
their career to the next stage and be involved in the further development of
a hugely impressive department.
the east
Wills, trusts and Probate solicitor
This Suffolk firm seeks an experienced Wills, Trust and probate practitioner
for their busy private client department.
They seek a proactive candidate capable of offering advice and
appropriately drafting wills for a wide range of clients, acting for and on
behalf of executors in probate matters and practiced in advising on and
preparing LpA’s; a knowledge of the use and creation of trusts is essential.
experience of the steps necessary to be taken in Court of protection
matters would be preferred, failing which a keenness to develop knowledge
and understanding of that area.
The candidate will be expected to raise the profile of the department and
show initiative in marketing both their area of specialism and the firm as a
whole.
There are genuine partnership prospects for a suitable candidate.
Legal Recruitment Specialists
Great opportunities available nationwide.
www.rcclegal.co.uk
t: 01480 493271 • e: nicola@rcclegal.co.uk