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 assessment proceedings. The Master did not err in his approach to hourly rates, having exercised discretion based on the pleadings and nature of the case. The reduction of counsel's brief fee was not justified as the fee was properly incurred before settlement, and the Master erred in reducing it for reasons not supported by the evidence. The Calderbank offer was not effective as it was conditional and incapable of acceptance, and the Master erred in relying on it to award costs against the appellant post-20 January 2017.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1692 (QB)
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) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; some grounds succeed, others dismissed.
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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in disregarding the 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 assessment proceedings. The Master did not err in his approach to hourly rates, having exercised discretion based on the pleadings and nature of the case. The reduction of counsel's brief fee was not justified as the fee was properly incurred before settlement, and the Master erred in reducing it for reasons not supported by the evidence. The Calderbank offer was not effective as it was conditional and incapable of acceptance, and the Master erred in relying on it to award costs against the appellant post-20 January 2017.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; some grounds succeed, others dismissed.

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.