header-logo header-logo

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

Costs spiral in £265 dispute

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—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll