Dockerill and another (minors by their litigation friend) v Tullett; Macefield (a minor by his litigation friend) v Bakos; Tubridy (by her litigation friend) v Sarwar [2012] EWCA Civ 184, [2012] All ER (D) 167 (Feb)
In circumstances where an order was for a detailed assessment of costs on the standard basis, the court’s obligation under CPR 44.5(1)(a) was to decide whether the costs claimed were proportionately and reasonably incurred or were proportionate and reasonable in amount. That was a fundamentally different exercise from that under CPR Pt 27 where the court was not permitted to order the payment of any costs except those specified under CPR 27.14. The provisions of CPR 45.7(2) excluded certain types of case, including claims for sums below £1,000, from the predictive costs regime but did not otherwise dictate how those costs were to be dealt with. However, the combined effect of CPR 8.9(c) and CPR 21.10(2)(b)(i) was to make those types of cases multi-track claims to which CPR Pt 27 had no application.
The costs judge was required to look realistically at
