Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) (13 June 2014)

Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) (13 June 2014)

A costs budget signed by a costs draftsman rather than a senior legal representative is an irregularity, not a nullity; the Defendant's costs budget remains valid and the Defendant is not to be treated as having filed a budget comprising only court fees.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Americhem Europe Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Rakem Limited; Third Party: Gregory Pipe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Management Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc)
Outcome
Third Party's submission rejected; Defendant's costs budget accepted as valid.
Legal Topics
Costs Budget, Practice Direction 3 E, Statement of Truth, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Costs Budget Practice Direction 3 E Statement of Truth Relief From Sanctions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Americhem Europe Limited

Claimant

Rakem Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Gregory Pipe

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Costs Management Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs budget signed by a costs draftsman rather than a senior legal representative is a nullity under PD3E
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be treated as having filed a budget comprising only court fees

Ratio Decidendi

A costs budget signed by a costs draftsman rather than a senior legal representative is an irregularity, not a nullity; the Defendant's costs budget remains valid and the Defendant is not to be treated as having filed a budget comprising only court fees.

Court Disposition

Third Party's submission rejected; Defendant's costs budget accepted as valid.

Orders

  • Irregularity to be remedied at Defendant's cost.
  • Third Party to be compensated £50 for bringing the matter to the Court.