Boyd & Hutchinson v Joseph [2003] EWHC 413 (Ch) (14 March 2003)

Boyd & Hutchinson v Joseph [2003] EWHC 413 (Ch) (14 March 2003)

Miss Joseph was not a practising solicitor able to charge for her time after 1 April 1996 due to lack of indemnity insurance and inability to charge clients; thus, she is to be treated as a litigant in person for that period and subject to the relevant restrictions. The assessment of her costs is governed by the CPR, not RSC Ord 62, and the hourly rate allowed by the Costs Judge was excessive and not supported by evidence. The broad-brush approach to document work was acceptable.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 413
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Boyd & Hutchinson; Respondent/claimant: Jennifer Joseph
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Rulings of Costs Judge Wright Regarding Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; issues 1 to 3 decided in favour of the appellant; issue of financial loss and appropriate hourly rate for period from 1 April 1996 remitted to Costs Judge; document work allowances upheld.
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Solicitor Litigant Costs Recovery, Litigant in Person Rules, Application of CPR Vs RSC Ord 62, Hourly Rate for Solicitor's Own Time
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Solicitor Litigant Costs Recovery Litigant in Person Rules Application of CPR Vs RSC Ord 62 Hourly Rate for Solicitor's Own Time

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boyd & Hutchinson

Appellant/defendant

Jennifer Joseph

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Rulings of Costs Judge Wright Regarding 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 or a practising solicitor for the relevant periods
  3. 3 Whether the hourly rate allowed for the claimant was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Miss Joseph was not a practising solicitor able to charge for her time after 1 April 1996 due to lack of indemnity insurance and inability to charge clients; thus, she is to be treated as a litigant in person for that period and subject to the relevant restrictions. The assessment of her costs is governed by the CPR, not RSC Ord 62, and the hourly rate allowed by the Costs Judge was excessive and not supported by evidence. The broad-brush approach to document work was acceptable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; issues 1 to 3 decided in favour of the appellant; issue of financial loss and appropriate hourly rate for period from 1 April 1996 remitted to Costs Judge; document work allowances upheld.

Orders

  • Remit to Costs Judge the issue of financial loss and determination of appropriate hourly rate for period from 1 April 1996.
  • Document work allowances to stand as assessed.