I continue to see, on a virtually daily basis, claims for costs that include work relating to funding, notwithstanding the clear judgment from the Court of Appeal.
The last time I mentioned this, readers replied with comments such as:
“Clients won’t let me leave it out”
“Why do the Defendant’s job for them? Keep it in I say.”
Now when I see bills including this type of claim, I raise a standard dispute along the following lines:
“It is noted that work is claimed relating to funding (eg items x and y) despite clear Court of Appeal authority from 2011 (see paragraphs 108, 114 and 145(vii) of Motto v Trafigura Ltd  EWCA Civ 1150) that such work is not recoverable. It is clear that those responsible for drafting the Bill and checking the same are not aware of the distinction between recoverable and irrecoverable work and it is anticipated that other non-chargeable attendance time and routine communications with the Claimant have been included. The Defendant, adopting a broad-brush approach, offers x% of the attendance time and routine communications claimed. If the same is not accepted the Court will be asked to determine the recoverability of each and every item claimed and the Defendant will request that the cost of this task be paid by the Claimant in any event.”
Oh, and don’t expect to recover above Grade D rates for drafting your bill where you get the basics wrong.