header-logo header-logo

Costs spiral in £265 dispute

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs

Three Court of Appeal judges have criticised a case involving a dispute over £265, which cost more than £100,000 in lawyer’s fees. Peakman v Linbrooke Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1239, was heard over just eight days.

The court awarded the claimant David Peakman, a self-employed cable jointer, £1,145, which was less than he was claiming, and the defendant Linbrooke Services, a telecommunications company, £1,410 plus interest. The judgments were to be satisfied by the payment of £265 plus interest by Peakman to Linbrooke.

However, Peakman sought to appeal against the judge’s decision to make no order of costs.

Permission to appeal was granted. While the court would be reluctant to involve itself in the order for costs, it was arguable that an injustice had been done to Peakman.

In his judgment, Lord Justice Goldring says: “Relative to the sums involved the costs are enormous. Linbrooke’s costs below were estimated to be £32,700 before the costs of an eight day trial. Mr. Peakman’s costs were some £18,000. According to the Statement of Costs supplied to this court Mr Peakman’s costs of his appeal (taking into account the uplift on a conditional fee agreement) amount to £30,481.80.

“This is deeply troubling, not only for this case but as a reflection of the least satisfactory aspect of our civil justice system.”

Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll