header-logo header-logo

04 October 2024 / John O'Hare
Issue: 8088 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

A lesson in PD 45 calculations

191456
Fixed costs in intermediate track cases: how to calculate what’s recoverable, by John O’Hare
  • Gives guidance on three of the calculations in PD 45, Table 14 that dictate the amount paid to the winner in intermediate track cases, based on: the stage in the proceedings at conclusion; the complexity band; and the addition of certain extra costs.

Practice Direction 45, Table 14 applies to most (but not all) cases allocated to the intermediate track. The amount payable to the winner (claimant or defendant) is dependent on five calculations:

i. the stage in the proceedings when the case was won;

ii. the complexity band to which the case had previously been assigned;

and where appropriate:

iii. the addition of certain extra costs and disbursements;

iv. increases which may be allowed; and/or

v. reductions which may be imposed.

Guidance as to the first three calculations is given below. The other two (eg, London weighting, VAT, reductions to be made because of unreasonable behaviour by the receiving party) are not covered

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll