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
PD 47 para.5.8 states:
“Where it is necessary or convenient to do so, a bill of costs may be divided into two or more parts”
It is difficult to conceive a more necessary or convenient situation then where, due to the transitional provisions, part of the costs will be subject to the old proportionality test and part will be subject to the new Jackson test.
Why then do some law costs draftsmen fail to do this?
How is a judge on assessment meant to apply the correct tests where the bill is not clearly split?
Should applications be made to compel such bills to be re-drafted? Alternatively, should the judge just adopt a robust broad-brush approach and apply the new test to all costs claimed (with the receiving party having nobody but themselves to blame for not having drafted the bill properly)?