header-logo header-logo

Costs: getting personal

04 April 2025 / Julian Caddick
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , Litigants in person
printer mail-detail
214564
The complexities of costs proceedings can be a minefield for litigants in person. But the courts expect compliance with the rules, writes Julian Caddick
  • Considers the case of Mlundira v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB), in which the LiP claimant had succeeded in judicial review proceedings regarding unlawful immigration detention.

For 50 years, the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (as amended) has provided a mechanism for litigants in person (LiPs) to recover costs from other parties to proceedings. However, many LiPs fail to appreciate the complexities and intricacies of rules of court and common law, particularly when it comes to costs proceedings.

Under r 46.5 of the CPR, a LiP’s recoverable fees are limited to two-thirds of what they would have recovered if legally represented. This does not apply to disbursements, only recoverable fees. They are further restricted to an hourly rate of £19 per hour unless they can demonstrate evidence of financial loss in connection with time they have reasonably

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll