Tribe v Southdown Gliding Club Ltd & Ors

Tribe v Southdown Gliding Club Ltd & Ors

The Claimant reasonably relied on the Defendants’ low estimate of costs in the Allocation Questionnaire, and the Defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant difference between the estimate and the costs claimed. Therefore, the recoverable costs should be reduced to a reasonable figure reflecting what would have been expected for defending the action to discontinuance, excluding trial and quantum, set at £70,000.

Parties
Claimant: Douglas Tribe; First Defendant: Southdown Gliding Club Limited; Second Defendant: Robert Adam; Third Defendant: The Estate of Ron King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Ruling on Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Costs recoverable by the First and Third Defendants limited to £70,000; hourly rates adjusted; costs draftsman’s rate reduced.
Legal Topics
Costs Estimates, Reasonableness of Costs, Proportionality of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Estimates Reasonableness of Costs Proportionality of Costs Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Tribe

Claimant

Southdown Gliding Club Limited

First Defendant

Robert Adam

Second Defendant

The Estate of Ron King

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Ruling on Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs claimed by the First and Third Defendants should be limited to the sums estimated in the Allocation Questionnaire
  2. 2 What effect, if any, the estimate should have on the claim for costs
  3. 3 Whether the costs claimed are disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant reasonably relied on the Defendants’ low estimate of costs in the Allocation Questionnaire, and the Defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant difference between the estimate and the costs claimed. Therefore, the recoverable costs should be reduced to a reasonable figure reflecting what would have been expected for defending the action to discontinuance, excluding trial and quantum, set at £70,000.

Court Disposition

Costs recoverable by the First and Third Defendants limited to £70,000; hourly rates adjusted; costs draftsman’s rate reduced.

Orders

  • The First and Third Defendants’ recoverable costs are limited to £70,000, excluding costs of trial and quantum.
  • Solicitor’s hourly rates allowed at £280 (2003), £300 (2004), £320 (2005) for partner; Grade C rates as claimed; costs draftsman’s rate limited to £120 per hour.