header-logo header-logo

05 March 2020
Issue: 7877 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

Potential for extending the e-bill

The electronic bill of costs is likely to be extended, starting with Court of Protection bills, an Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) roundtable of specialist judges and lawyers has heard

The bill has been compulsory for most multi-track cases for nearly a year. However, roundtable attendees said its potential has been held back by a resistance to change.

Senior Costs Judge, Andrew Gordon-Saker, said his experience has been ‘pretty positive’, with problems caused more by lawyers than the bill itself, and he is keen for the bill to be extended to Court of Protection and judicial review proceedings.

‘At the Senior Costs Court Office (SCCO), we get over 8,000 Court of Protection bills per year,’ he said.

‘Now that we have electronic filing, it is crazy that somebody files a bill electronically, and we have to print it off for somebody to assess, and then scan it back on. I also think Court of Protection bills lend themselves to an electronic format. After that, we can look at legal aid bills, and solicitor and own client bills.’ He said electronic billing could also be used for judicial review.

Concerns about the bill included the need to improve the way fee-earners record time in the first place, a lack of training for judges and practitioners in Excel or other XML spreadsheet programs, and a reluctance among some practitioners to move on from paper.

Judge Chris Lethem, who sits on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, said: ‘I am hearing anecdotal evidence that, whilst regional costs judges will put their foot down, some other judges will show no resistance to an application to have an old style bill.

‘Perhaps they are led by parties that do not want the electronic bill… It is teaching old dogs new tricks.’

Costs lawyer William Mackenzie, of DWF, which hosted the event, said: ‘The issue is that fee-earners do not have any interests in costs.

‘If somebody says, “Let’s dispense with this”, any defendant fee-earner is going to think, “Well, it doesn’t really make a difference to me. I’ll agree to that”. Any claimant that asks for it pretty much gets it.’

However, he said his fee-earners estimated it was 25-30% quicker to review an electronic bill, draft advice and come up with settlement parameters.

Issue: 7877 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll