[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Speedwell Estates Ltd & Anor v Dalziel & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1307 (31 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1307.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1307

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE NEWCASTLE
UPON TYNE COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER JAMES ALLEN QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 31st July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: A point this morning has arisen as to the attendance of counsel who have conducted the appeal and her instructing solicitors at the handing down and pronouncement of the judgment. This arose because there had been an earlier summary assessment, very properly prepared by the solicitors for the successful party, who are Birmingham solicitors. The sums on that gave no cause for any concern on the part of the Court and neither on the part of the solicitors to the unsuccessful party who were prepared to agree to them.
2. A revised assessment was however submitted and reached me yesterday afternoon. The assessment was faxed to the other side but I have no information as to what consultations took place. The solicitor present in Court this morning is unable to help.
3. The appeal was conducted by counsel from Newcastle Upon Tyne, Miss James-Stadden, and she has appeared this morning having had considerable difficulties because of the cancellation of a train, in getting to Court in time, though the Court was only kept waiting for a very short time. We make no criticism of the arrangement she made on the assumption that her journey from Newcastle to London was in the circumstances justified. It has been an expensive matter. The difference in assessed costs between the earlier statement which had no regard to the possibility that judgment would be reserved and handed down was a total of £6,966.34 including VAT. The sum now assessed and disclosed by the same solicitors was £9,260.14. So that the additional costs claimed initially by reason of the handing down was £2,294 greater.
4. That is a large sum to charge for attending upon a hand down judgment, and the Court queried the figure. Mr Gerald for the unsuccessful appellant to the appeal was prepared to accept the earlier figure. As I indicated, he had no notice of the much higher figure, and when he realised that a larger sum was being claimed, he took objection to it. We rose for a few minutes to enable him to consider the position and for Miss James-Staddon and those instructing her to consider their positions.
5. The items are as follows: The solicitors costs to travel to the Court of Appeal, that is presumably from Birmingham and is supported by the figure of five hours I mentioned, which is the sum of £790. There are two items for counsel; one is the brief fee of £750 and travel expenses of £174. There is also a further charge by the solicitor for half an hour conference with counsel before the hand down and for hearing time estimated at one hour, the figures being £79 and £158.
6. I say at once that when the point was raised by the Court that Miss James-Stadden and those instructing her readily acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight these costs should not have been incurred in this case. One of the advantages of the hand down procedure is that the parties' solicitors have the judgment two days in advance of the hand down. That gives them an opportunity to consider the contents of the judgment and to confer with their opponents on whether there are likely to be any contentious matters when the judgment is handed down. There are cases, for example, where there is to be a remission to the lower court and complex matters may arise as to the form the remission should take, which require the attendance of counsel who was present at the trial and familiar with the issues involved. There may also be cases where there are contentious matters on costs when draft assessments have been prepared which involve points requiring counsel and solicitor with knowledge of the conduct of the appeal to be present.
7. Each case must be considered on its own merits. My experience, and I have a good deal of experience with administration of justice on the circuits where a judgment is handed down ( or in the old form) is that solicitors do have regard to the costs implications. Having regard to the costs which may be involved arrangements are sometimes made for London counsel and sometimes London agents for solicitors to attend. That is a long-standing practice and I express the hope that counsel and solicitors who practice outside London are conscious of their duty to limit costs and to take measures proportionate to the particular situation when considering what costs should be incurred when the judgment is handed down.
8. It is hard to imagine a more straightforward case in terms of the implications of the hand down than this one. The point of law involved was an interesting one. We had very good submissions, if I may say so, from counsel and the issues, as appear from the judgment, exercised the members of the Court, but in terms of hand down it was very straightforward. The costs below has no complications. The appeal was dismissed and no consequential matters were likely to arise. If they had been likely to arise, then the respondents' solicitors and counsel had an opportunity yesterday or on Friday to confer with their opponents to see what might be raised at the hearing today. I regard such consultations as necessary sometimes for a proper discharge of the duties of the parties where the judgment is handed down.
9. This was not a case where it was appropriate for the amount of expenditure which was initially claimed properly to be incurred in this particular case. Having said that, we do note that the other figures, and members of the Court again have some experience in the quantum of costs which arise on appeal hearings, claimed by the successful party in this case are not in any way excessive.
10. What I have said was substantially ventilated in discussion with the parties before and after the few minutes adjournment. When we returned, Miss James-Stadden readily conceded that she could not expect the unsuccessful party to pay the additional sum of £2,200 odd by reason of attendance at the judgment. When we returned we were told that the sum now agreed between the parties as the assessed costs is £7,810, and having regard to the observations I have made that appears to us to be an entirely proper figure and costs are ordered in that sum.