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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll