header-logo header-logo

18 January 2018 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

All clear as May v Wavell costs overturned?

nlj_7779_regan

Dominic Regan questions why (five years on) the new proportionality test can still be a mystery

Just published is the appellate decision of Judge Dight, assisted by Master Whalan, in the case of May v Wavell. The claimant has doubled his recoverable costs, overturning the award made by Master Rowley in June 2016 and reported at [2016] EWHC B16 (Costs).

‘The proportionality Rules now guide every detailed or summary assessment of costs on the standard basis. It will no longer be possible for successful parties to recover the absurd levels of costs which previously caused disquiet.’ So said Sir Rupert Jackson in his 2016 book, The Reform of Civil Litigation, at paragraph 3-044.

If only things were so straightforward. Nearly five years on from the introduction of the new proportionality test, we are none the wiser as to its proper application.

The black letter of the law provides, at CPR 44.3 (5), that costs incurred are

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll