Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer – Round Two


Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

Not long ago I commented on the perceived differences in the skills of specialist costs counsel compared with costs lawyers and concluded that the latter could not realistically expect to compete with the former.  The comments that were made on the post suggest that I am not alone in this view.

You can therefore imagine the sense of irony I felt in relation to the telephone call I received a day or two later from a defendant solicitor client.

They had previously instructed specialist costs counsel to attend a detailed assessment hearing.  Unfortunately, the bill of costs had been assessed for a few pounds more than the defendant’s offer and the the claimant had therefore been awarded the costs of the detailed assessment hearing.

Now, losing by a small margin is not exactly unknown in costs matters but there were one or two unfortunate features:

1. The defendant had made an offer before the bill of costs was drafted.  Excluding the costs of drafting the bill, the defendant would have won comfortably on the offer (see Forward v Burton [2005] EWHC 90003 (Costs)).  Counsel failed to argue this point.

2. The bill had been correctly drafted, at the time, claiming VAT at 15%.  The defendant’s offer had been based on 15% VAT.  No request had been made to amend the VAT claim in the bill.  Apparently, or at least so the court subsequently ruled, the defendant’s counsel had agreed VAT at 17.5% when doing the calculations with the other side outside court.  No attempt had been made to argue that consideration of whether the original offer had been successful should have been based on the VAT rate that applied when the offer had been made.  This made the difference between winning and losing. 

The barrister in question shall remain nameless but, from my limited experience of being against him in court, is a gifted junior (as specialist costs counsel almost invariably are).  So what went wrong?

I suspect this was a typical example of the potential limitations and drawbacks of relying on specialist costs counsel.  Or, at least, relying solely on costs counsel.

Specialist costs counsel are often fiendishly clever when it comes to arguing complex and novel points of costs law but often have much less of a grip on the rough-and-tumble of day-to-day disputes.  Issues that are, or at least should be, bread-and-butter for law costs draftsmen are ones that costs counsel are often far less familiar with because they tend to be instructed to deal just with the big issues, such as CFA compliance, rather than run-of-the-mill detailed assessments.  I know a number of costs counsel who would immediately agree that this is correct and often prefer to have a costs draftsman attend a detailed assessment with them to deal with the routine arguments.  The drawback with this, of course, is the extra cost of having both attend with every chance the judge will only allow the fees of one.

So, I’m now going to have to refine what I said before.  Costs counsel will generally be far more appropriate to instruct to deal with complex legal costs arguments and for cost appeals.  Law costs draftsmen/costs lawyers may be better for routine detailed assessments and, sometimes, to assist costs counsel on cases that span both complex and routine issues (even if you shouldn’t expect to recover two sets of fees). 

To add to the problem faced by instructing solicitors, they often have to rely on their costs draftsman/lawyer to advise them on whether there is indeed a problem complex enough to merit involving specialist costs counsel.  I’ve seen enough cases to know that sometimes this is only appreciated during the middle of the detailed assessment when the costs draftsman/lawyer finds themselves floundering.  Or worse, at the end of the assessment hearing when it has all gone horribly wrong.


4 thoughts on “Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer – Round Two


  1. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    Mark Friston on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    Simon makes a very good point: it is a matter of horses for courses. Different people specialise in different activities, and this may or may not include oral advocacy at detailed assessments. In general, counsel tends to favour things other than detailed assessments as they become more senior. Counsel ought to be entirely open about these things. At the very least, counsel’s clerk ought to say what counsel’s specialisms are. We go one step further and we publish a table on our website that sets out who specialises in what, including detailed assessments. This cannot replace personal recommendation, however, which is by far the best way of choosing an advocate, be that person a costs lawyer, a barrister or a solicitor.


  2. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    Jacques Hughes on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    I am sorry, I think Simon is charitable. The points missed were elementary. Being “specialist” counsel doesn’t come into it. Looking at whether an offer should have been accepted AT THE POINT IT WAS MADE is basic stuff, and it constantly arises in general practice in the context of CPR 36, as well as in costs. We all have off days of course – that is why we have insurance. This barrister ought to be on the phone to his insurer straightaway.


  3. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    Anonymous on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    Ive just completed a DA, and the advocate for the otherside (unqualified) was as vexatious and otiose as Ive ever even heard tale of in worst case scenarios!

    The best I can do, is report them to their client, but whom I know wont give a fig. Were they counsel or Association member, i would have been pressing for a reprimand at the least

    There is no guarantee of quality, no matter the title or time in the job, but unless an effective meassure is found against muppets like this, then the regulation proposed by the Association is inevitable, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong

    PS I am firmly against the Association move, as their abandonment of Associate status and elevation to Fellow/Cost Lawyer, the latter being a simple attendance on a course, produces no greater ability to act than my oponent the other day


  4. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    Truly Eminent Costs Professional on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    MR Anonymous: please learn grammar and spelling. Once you have mastered the English language you could perhaps [one day] become as eminent and professional in costs as me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>