Aliston Albert Ashman v Clyde Caulson Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1810 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2014-000179 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 19 July 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1810 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Master Matthews
Case No: HC-2014-000179
Joshua Hedgman (instructed by Taylor Rose TTKW) for the Claimant
Francis Hoar (instructed by Mordi & Co) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 21 June 2016
On 21 June 2016 I gave judgment extempore in preliminary issues that I had tried. I awarded the costs of those issues to the Defendant, to be paid by the Claimant on the standard basis if not agreed. In seeking to agree the terms of the order, counsel for the defendant sought to include a term for a payment on account of costs. On 23 June the Defendant served a costs schedule in the sum of £48, 647.70. Counsel for the Claimant resists the order for payment on account. The parties have filed short written submissions on the point and I have to decide it.
CPR rule 44.2 (8) provides:
"Where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs, unless there is good reason not to do so".
The Claimant says that a payment on account should be sought at the time that the costs order is made. The alternative is that an interim costs certificate may be issued at any time after the commencement of the detailed assessment process, under CPR 44.16(1). But here no request for a payment on account was made at the time the order was made, and no detailed assessment proceedings have yet been commenced.
Moreover, the Claimant says it is inappropriate to deal with the matter by way of written submissions, and that in any event no costs schedule was served 24 hours before the hearing, in breach of CPR 44PD para 9.5(4)(b). For myself, I do not think that a payment on account cannot be sought by written submissions in an appropriate case. Frequently costs questions arising at the end of a hearing are left over to be dealt with in this way. Nor is the failure to serve a costs schedule 24 hours before the hearing an objection, fatal or otherwise. The whole of para 9.5 of PD44 is, as para 9.5(1) makes clear, concerned with summary and not detailed assessment of costs.
The substantial point, as it seems to me, is whether a request for a payment on account can only be made at the hearing itself. If so, then, once the parties come to draw up the order for the court's approval, it is too late to argue for its inclusion.
The general rule is that an order takes effect from the moment it is made by the court, not when it is entered and sealed by the court office: see Holtby v Hodgson (1890) 24 QBD 103; CPR 40.7. But the court retains power to alter its judgment or order at any time until it is entered and perfected by sealing: Re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19, CA. This power is not restricted to exceptional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephen John Culliford v Jocelyn Thorpe
...filed, pursuant to rule 47.16 (1). In this respect they rely on a decision of mine, sitting as a chancery master, in Ashman v Thomas [2016] EWHC 1810 (Ch). That was a case where costs were awarded to a party but no order for a payment on account was made at the time that the order was pron......