|
At the conclusion of a trial, a judge may carry out a summary assessment of costs, or he may order detailed assessment. Under CPR 44.3 (8), the Court is able in those circumstances to order a payment on account, in order to reimburse a Claimant for previous bills rendered. If the matter is not concluded at trial, however, the rules provide that an application for a payment on account can only be made at the time of – or after – a Bill of Costs has been filed at Court. Despite this, the Courts have found that it is unreasonable for a paying party to withhold a payment on account.
Mars -v- Teknowledge | Soliman -v- Islington Borough Council
|
MARS -v- TEKNOWLEDGE
This case considered the merits of ordering a payment on account of costs, following a trial in accordance with CPR 44.3(8). It found that the court should on a rough and ready basis normally order an amount to be paid on account to the successful party, the amount being a lesser sum than the likely full amount. Amongst other issues, the Court found that if a payment on account was to be ordered, the judge would have to form a rough view as to the ultimate amount of assessed costs in respect of which that payment was to be made. Taking into account a number of issues which were raised during the course of the hearing, not least the fact that there were aspects of the claimant's behaviour which were unreasonable, (the letters before action, the heavy-handed way it had, as a large company started this litigation, difficulties over the independent expert witness and so on), the judge ordered, by way of interim payment, two thirds of the costs, which on a rough estimate, the claimant would be awarded, to be paid on an instalment basis.
|
Back to Top  |
|
SOLIMAN -v- ISLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
In a claim where damages had been settled for £50,000 in respect of a personal injury claim, the defendant failed to make any interim reimbursement of costs. The matter was before the court on a costs only trial, wherein the judge ordered that a payment on account was to be made. The principles laid down in the judgment were clear. In the ordinary course, and notwithstanding the court's discretion, an order for a payment on account of costs would ordinarily follow where the claim had been settled on terms providing for payment of the claimant's costs, where there was no risk of appeal and where the defendant was not impecunious. It was unreasonable, therefore, for the defendant's insurers to have refused to concede the principle that such a payment was appropriate. That conduct alone had necessitated the present hearing, since it was highly likely that the amount of any such payment would have been agreed if the principle had been conceded. It followed that the claimant should have the costs of the hearing, but only the standard basis.
|
Back to Top |
|
|