Andrew Harrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMaster Gordon-Saker
Judgment Date07 March 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] EWHC B5 (Costs)
Docket NumberCase No: AGS 13 00290
CourtSenior Court Costs Office
Date07 March 2013

[2013] EWHC B5 (Costs)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before:

Master Gordon-Saker

COSTS JUDGE

Case No: AGS 13 00290

Between:
(1) Andrew Harrison
(2) Elaine Harrison
Appellants
and
Black Horse Ltd
Respondent

APPEARANCES:

Mr Simon Browne QC (instructed by McHale & Company, Solicitors, Altrincham) for the Appellants

Mr Daniel Saoul (instructed by SCM Solicitors, Barnet) for the Respondent

Master Gordon-Saker
1

This is an application by the Appellants for an order for payment on account of costs under CPR 44.3(8). The Appellants are entitled to their costs under an order made by consent in the Supreme Court which provides that the Respondent should pay the Appellants' recoverable costs in the courts below, to be assessed by way of detailed assessment in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

2

The consent order provided for the withdrawal of the appeal, the deemed satisfaction of earlier costs orders made against the Appellants in the courts below and the repayment to the Appellants of the sums that they had paid to the Respondent by way of insurance premiums, which was (as I understand it) the relief they sought in the proceedings.

3

The total costs claimed in the bills which have been served on the Respondent in respect of the proceedings in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, come to a total of over £1.5 million, of which £1.48 million is claimed in respect of the appeal in the Court of Appeal. Those figures include a 100 per cent success fee on the solicitors' profit costs and counsel's fees.

4

The application is opposed strenuously. Mr Saoul (who represents the Respondent) submits that there are fundamental difficulties both with the application and with the claims for costs. In respect of the application, he submits that I do not have jurisdiction to make the order because the court that ordered the Respondent to pay costs is the Supreme Court, and the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to the Supreme Court. This application is made to me as a Master of the senior courts and Mr Saoul submits that there are no orders entitling the Appellants to costs made in the senior courts and no orders entitling the Appellants to costs to which the Civil Procedure Rules apply.

5

It seems to me that the effect of the order of the Supreme Court is to reverse the orders below, and that the Supreme Court is in effect exercising the jurisdiction of the courts below in ordering that the Respondent should pay the Appellants costs in those courts.

6

I am satisfied that the Civil Procedure Rules do apply to those orders, that they do apply to the detailed assessment of the costs made under those orders and that I do have jurisdiction to make the order sought under 44.3(8) of the Civil Procedure Rules. As a subsidiary point of jurisdiction, Mr Saoul submits that an order for payment on account (as opposed to an order for an interim costs certificate under Part 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules) is better exercised by the court making the order for costs than by a costs judge. Once upon a time I did have sympathy with that argument, but I have been persuaded in other cases that I am the court for the purposes of 44.3(8) and again it seems to me that I have jurisdiction to make the order sought.

7

As to the costs which will be recovered, Mr Saoul submits that there are fundamental issues in relation to the Appellants' recovery of any costs. It is submitted that no costs will be recoverable in respect of the proceedings in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal because each stage of the proceedings was governed by a separate conditional fee agreement.

8

The proceedings in the County Court were governed by a conditional fee agreement dated 13 th January 2009 between the Appellants and their...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT