Understanding costs orders

£17,000 bill of costs served in relation to appeal. Notice of Commencement relies on a court order and attaches a copy of the same. The costs provision of the order reads:

“No order as to costs”

You couldn’t make it up.

Perhaps when the new “automatic” bill drafting software is introduced it will also be able to interpret what costs orders mean.

9 thoughts on “Understanding costs orders

  1. Ah, but if the person responsible for that particular Bill (on which I would really like to draft the Points!) becomes involved in the Autocosts software…

  2. This is taking the “don’t ask don’t get” theory to the limit! I hope you still charge your full time for preparing PODs to a £17k bill as you will be achieving a 100% reduction for your client, why should you lose out?!!

  3. I would not draft the points but would make an application to set the notice of commencement aside and seek the costs of doing so.

  4. sorry, this is news? I am sick to the back teeth of getting bills claiming all costs, including interim applications where the draftsman has known about but covered up the costs award – even had several where costs were against their client!

  5. Well we’re all doomed anyway, this was the theme of the ACL conference yesterday, as I understood anyway.

    Yes, how is the bill that is going to be produced at the touch of a button going to allow for adverse costs orders and all eventualities, although we were advised yesterday that there can be unlimited columns, how easy is that going to be to read and understand????

    Personally I can see costs draftsmen having to input the information needed to produce a bill at the touch of a button, I’ll await developments.

  6. we will now be “editors”

    Also, why couldnt someone on the panel stick their heads out and say draw the bill properly in the first place or we will punish you in costs. I am referring to the proportionality / Budgetting phase splits.

    If they wont punish shoddy drafting now on the “old style” Bill what hope is there moving forward

  7. I also attended last Friday and agree with ‘abcde’ the lack of confirmation that bills which haven’t been split into phases or parts for proportionality won’t be ordered to be re-drawn with costs penalties is quite surprising.

    that the paying party did the analysis in Henry and the receiving party was content to rely on that analysis is also surprising.

    what are receiving parties afraid of? the software exists and if not available in everyones programs it isn’t rocket science is it?

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>