Hugh Cartwright & Amin v Devoy-Williams & Anor (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1692 (QB) (04 July 2018)

Hugh Cartwright & Amin v Devoy-Williams & Anor (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1692 (QB) (04 July 2018)

The pre-action offer was not relevant to the costs assessment as it related to the substantive claim, not the costs proceedings. The Master was entitled to exercise discretion on hourly rates, but erred in reducing counsel's brief fee and in relying on a Calderbank offer that was incapable of acceptance due to its conditions. The proper order is for the respondents to pay the appellant's post-20 January 2017 costs of the detailed assessment, including the full brief fee.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1692
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Hugh Cartwright & Amin; Respondent/defendant: Mr David Devoy-Williams; Respondent/defendant: Mrs Anjana Devoy-Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; costs orders varied
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Solicitor Client Disputes, Calderbank Offers, Brief Fees, Hourly Rates, Set Off of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Solicitor Client Disputes Calderbank Offers Brief Fees Hourly Rates Set Off of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Cartwright & Amin

Appellant/claimant

Mr David Devoy-Williams

Respondent/defendant

Mrs Anjana Devoy-Williams

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in disregarding a pre-action offer in the assessment of costs
  2. 2 Whether the hourly rates allowed were appropriate given the nature of the case
  3. 3 Whether the reduction of counsel's brief fee was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-action offer was not relevant to the costs assessment as it related to the substantive claim, not the costs proceedings. The Master was entitled to exercise discretion on hourly rates, but erred in reducing counsel's brief fee and in relying on a Calderbank offer that was incapable of acceptance due to its conditions. The proper order is for the respondents to pay the appellant's post-20 January 2017 costs of the detailed assessment, including the full brief fee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; costs orders varied

Orders

  • Respondents to pay post-20 January 2017 costs of detailed assessment, assessed at £3,000.
  • Respondents to pay £3,500 in respect of counsel's fees.