Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd (Defendant/Part 20 Claimant) George Walker Transport Ltd (Third Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Stuart-Smith |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-14-29 |
| Date | 13 June 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Stuart-Smith
Case No: HT-14-29
and
Malcolm Sheehan (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for the Claimant
Howard Cohen (instructed by Shakespeares) for the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant
Gregory Pipe (instructed by Clarion Solicitors LLP) for the Third Party
Hearing dates: Friday 6 June 2014
This action arises from the supply by the Defendant to the Claimant of 1000 kgs of chemical which was not the chemical that the Claimant had ordered. The Third Party is the haulier who made the delivery. The facts of the underlying dispute are unremarkable and are not relevant to the present issue.
The first CMC was listed for 6 June 2014. As a result, the parties came under an obligation to file costs budgets in the form of Precedent H by 29 May 2013. The Defendant served and filed its Precedent H a few minutes late. The delay was trivial and nothing further need be said about it. However, a further issue has been raised by the Third Party, which arises out of the fact that the Defendant's Precedent H, while compliant in every other respect, was signed by a Mr Russell Crossland, who described himself on the form as "Costs Draftsman".
The rules and practice directions relating to the service of Costs Budgets should now be well known to everyone who holds themselves out as being competent to conduct litigation in the Courts of England and Wales. CPR 3.13 and 3.14 provide:
"3.13 Unless the court otherwise orders, all parties except litigants in person must file and exchange budgets as required by the rules or as the court otherwise directs. Each party must do so by the date specified in the notice served under rule 26.3(1) or, if no such date is specified, seven days before the first case management conference.
3.14 Unless the court otherwise orders, any party which fails to file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees."
PD3E deals with the required format in the following terms:
"Budget format
Unless the court otherwise orders, a budget must be in the form of Precedent H annexed to this Practice Direction……A budget must be dated and verified by a statement of truth signed by a senior legal representative of the party…… (The wording for a statement of truth verifying a budget is set out in Practice Direction 22.)"
The Third Party submits that Mr Crossland is not a "senior legal representative" of the Defendant and that therefore the effect of the Precedent H being signed by him is that it is a nullity. The consequence of that would be that, unless the Court otherwise orders, the Defendant is to be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.
At the hearing, I rejected the Third Party's submission that the Defendant's Precedent H was a nullity. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.
The first question is whether Mr Crossland is a "senior legal representative" within the meaning of PD3E. He submitted a witness statement in which he said:
"I confirm that I am a Manager and Senior Costs Draftsman within the internal Costs Litigation team at Shakespeares Solicitors whose application for Associate at Shakespeares Solicitors has recently been endorsed by the partner in charge of the Costs Litigation Team."
Mr Crossland does not say that he is a solicitor and the circumstantial evidence suggests that he is not. He is included in the Defendant's Precedent H as one of three "fee earners" whose time costs are listed; but while the other two are referred to as "Grade C" and "Grade D" respectively (being usual shorthand for references to Solicitors, legal executives and paralegals in this context), he is only referred to as "Costs Draftsman" and is charged at a lower rate (£75 per hour) than the Grade D solicitor (£90 per hour). Whether or not he is a lawyer in profession, it is apparent from the Defendant's Precedent H (and was confirmed by Counsel at the hearing) that he has had no involvement in the case other than the preparation of the Defendant's costs budget for the CMC that is now in issue.
PD3E states that it supplements Section II of CPR Part 3. There is no definition of "senior legal representative" in the Practice Direction or in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Justyn James Page v RGC Restaurants Ltd
...a costs budget. I agree. It seems to me that RGC's approach in this regard is consistent with the decision of Stuart-Smith J in Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC). There a solicitor had served and filed a costs budget in the form of Precedent H in time, but it was sign......
-
Table of cases
...Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLr 312 III.25.58 american re-insurance Co v Gervay [2002] NSWSC 802 II.12.59 americhem Europe Ltd v rakem Ltd [2014] EWhC 1881 (TCC) III.26.287 aMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v austin (1986) 162 CLr 170 II.13.174 amey Birmingham highways Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2015] EWhC 2994......
-
Litigation
...[2014] EWHC 1274 (TCC); Azure East Midlands Ltd v Manchester Airport Group [2014] EWHC 1644 (TCC); Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC); Mott v Long [2017] EWHC 2130 (TCC); Freeborn v Marcal [2017] EWHC 3046 (TCC). 1197 GSK Project Management Ltd (in liq) v QPR Holdings L......