I’ve been having a bit of a tidy up and came across a copy of the original appeal judgment in Chester County Court in Callery v Gray.
The Callery v Gray litigation was ultimately viewed as a large success for claimants generally and Amelans solicitors in particular, the Claimant’s solicitors in that case. It was therefore interesting to reread the comments of His Honour Judge Edwards:
“In this particular case I note that the District Judge has slashed in half the basic costs figure, and I do not understand that that is being contested. I think, therefore, that in this particular case as to the basic costs figure the claimant’s solicitors must ask themselves whether what they were putting forward was in truth reasonable and proportionate for a case like this.”
Only in the crazy world of costs would this case be notched up as a success for the Claimant’s solicitors.
Costs- guaranteed to drive you to drink (which seems to be proven by Simon’s recent posts…)
Yeah, this was hardly a success, or if it was it was short lived, i take those comments as veiled criticism, a real karate kick to those who think they are/were big time.
In fact if we look at all of the original test cases surrounding ATE and success fee, I can’t help feel that the Courts were struggling to cope with volume of cases where clear breaches of the framework were evident.
It explains why since that time most Judgments with the potential to have wider implications are distinguished at first instance before anyone has the chance to jump on board!