Virginia Rylatt considers the lessons learnt from Mastercigars v Withers LLP
Costs judges dealing with estimates should have one’s sympathy. Instead of the “15% rule” that was habitually applied pursuant to the apparently sacrosanct principles which did not in fact derive from Wong v Vizards [1997] 2 Costs LR 46 we have two judgments of Morgan J dated 23 November 2007 [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), [2008] 3 All ER 417 and 30 March 2009 [2009] EWHC 651 (Ch), [2009] 1 WLR 881 and the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 7 December 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1526 to consider.
In between the first and second judgments of Morgan J, Withers LLP’s 11 bills were assessed by Costs Judge Simons at 78.4% of the costs as billed by Withers to its ex-client Mastercigars Direct Ltd—except that those costs covering the six-week period of the estimate were calculated being “capped” at the value of the estimate plus 20% pursuant to the judgment of Costs Judge Simons dated 11
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
