Andrew Lawson highlights the ambiguity surrounding the wording of the new fixed recoverable costs regime
One might have thought with the intense scrutiny that has been brought to bear upon the proportionality of costs in civil litigation over recent years, that the relevant civil procedure rules would be drafted in such a way so as to remove ambiguity, and the new fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime of CPR 45.29A, would be a shining example of certainty. You would be wrong. Fedinas & others v Fayaq & Octagon Insurance (18 June 2015, unreported) is the first decision of which I am aware, where the defendants have argued that despite the case being allocated to the multi-track, the regime of FRC still applies. The defendants sought a declaration to that effect which the court has now rejected.
The issue: How can CPR 45.29A and B (FRC) apply to a multi-track case?
Background
In a low-value multi-track case, proceeding in the Leeds County Court,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
