KMT & Ors (Chidren) v Kent County Council [2012] EWHC 2088 (QB) (23 July 2012)

KMT & Ors (Chidren) v Kent County Council [2012] EWHC 2088 (QB) (23 July 2012)

The Costs Judge applied the correct objective legal test, was entitled to select Central London guideline rates and to allow an uplift based on the factors in CPR 44.5(3), and did not make an arithmetical error in the assessment of documentary time. All grounds of appeal fail.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2088 (QB)
Parties
Claimants/respondents: KMT, KAY, MEY and MJY (Children proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor); Defendant/appellant: Kent County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment by Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Hourly Rates, Uplift on Guideline Rates, Discretion of Costs Judge, Standard Basis Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Hourly Rates Uplift on Guideline Rates Discretion of Costs Judge Standard Basis Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KMT, KAY, MEY and MJY (Children proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)

Claimants/respondents

Kent County Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment by Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Judge applied the correct legal test in assessing hourly rates
  2. 2 Whether an uplift on Central London guideline rates was permissible
  3. 3 Whether the Costs Judge made an arithmetical error in the assessment of documentary time

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Judge applied the correct objective legal test, was entitled to select Central London guideline rates and to allow an uplift based on the factors in CPR 44.5(3), and did not make an arithmetical error in the assessment of documentary time. All grounds of appeal fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All grounds of appeal rejected
  • Costs Judge's assessment of costs upheld