Boyd & Hutchinson v Joseph

Boyd & Hutchinson v Joseph

The claimant was not entitled to recover costs as a practising solicitor after 1 April 1996 because she could not have charged for her time due to lack of indemnity insurance; for those periods, she is treated as a litigant in person and subject to the relevant restrictions. The assessment of costs is governed by the CPR, not RSC Ord 62, for costs awarded after 26 April 1999. The hourly rate allowed by the Costs Judge was excessive and should be reduced to £50 per hour for the relevant period. The Costs Judge's approach to the challenged document items was reasonable and not in error.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Boyd & Hutchinson; Respondent/claimant: Jennifer Joseph
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; issues remitted to Costs Judge for further determination.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Litigant in Person, Solicitor's Costs, Application of CPR Vs RSC, Hourly Rate Determination
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Litigant in Person Solicitor's Costs Application of CPR Vs RSC Hourly Rate Determination

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boyd & Hutchinson

Appellant/defendant

Jennifer Joseph

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessment of the claimant's costs is governed by RSC Ord 62 or the CPR
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a litigant in person for the relevant periods
  3. 3 Appropriate hourly rate for costs claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not entitled to recover costs as a practising solicitor after 1 April 1996 because she could not have charged for her time due to lack of indemnity insurance; for those periods, she is treated as a litigant in person and subject to the relevant restrictions. The assessment of costs is governed by the CPR, not RSC Ord 62, for costs awarded after 26 April 1999. The hourly rate allowed by the Costs Judge was excessive and should be reduced to £50 per hour for the relevant period. The Costs Judge's approach to the challenged document items was reasonable and not in error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; issues remitted to Costs Judge for further determination.

Orders

  • Remit to Costs Judge the issue of financial loss and determination of appropriate hourly rate for the period from 1 April 1996.
  • Costs Judge to reassess costs in accordance with this judgment.