The Court of Appeal has this week adjourned CAM Legal v Belsner, and directed that two days be set aside for the hearing with a third day kept in reserve. The hearing is to take place by 31 July if possible.
It will be heard by the same court of Lord Justice Vos, Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Flaux, and Lord Justice Arnold. The senior costs judge will join them as an assessor.
About 900 cases have been stayed, awaiting the outcome of the appeal.
NLJ columnist and civil costs specialist, Professor Dominic Regan, of City University, said: ‘The court is profoundly concerned about the impact of any decision upon the 600,000 cases that go through the RTA portal.
‘This concern is exacerbated with plans to make pre-action protocols a fundamental of mainstream civil procedure.’
While a transcript has been ordered of what took place at the 22 and 23 February hearing before it was adjourned, the court made it clear that the new hearing will be a fresh start rather than a continuation.
Regan said: ‘Consequently, the parties are to provide new skeleton arguments sequentially, with the claimant first, the defendant second and the intervening Law Society last.
‘Permission was granted to exceed the 25-page limit for each skeleton.’
Regan said the appeal judges would determine the outcome of the case and not send it back to the District Judge.
The case concerns the issue of whether work done under the pre-action protocols is contentious business or non-contentious for the purposes of the Solicitors Act 1974.
According to the Association of Costs Lawyers, claimant solicitors often use a contingency fee (based on proportion of damages) agreement for work done prior to the claim being issued, and a conditional fee agreement (based on an uplift of fees charged) once the claim is issued. A finding that pre-action work is contentious business would make contingency fees unlawful and unenforceable.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e72b9449_1)
