Halborg v EMW Law LLP

Halborg v EMW Law LLP

A solicitors LLP acting as its own legal representative is not a litigant in person under CPR 46.5 and is entitled to recover costs as if represented by a legal representative, in line with the Chorley principle. There is no rational or policy basis for distinguishing LLPs from partnerships or sole practitioners for this purpose.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Mr Scott Halborg; Respondent/claimant: EMW Law LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigant in Person, Solicitor Costs Recovery, Chorley Principle, Limited Liability Partnerships, Interpretation of CPR 46.5
Civil Procedure Costs Litigant in Person Solicitor Costs Recovery Chorley Principle Limited Liability Partnerships Interpretation of CPR 46.5

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

Parties

Mr Scott Halborg

Appellant/defendant

EMW Law LLP

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitors LLP acting as its own legal representative is a litigant in person under CPR 46.5 and subject to the costs limits for litigants in person
  2. 2 Whether the Chorley principle applies to LLPs as it does to partnerships and solicitors in sole practice

Ratio Decidendi

A solicitors LLP acting as its own legal representative is not a litigant in person under CPR 46.5 and is entitled to recover costs as if represented by a legal representative, in line with the Chorley principle. There is no rational or policy basis for distinguishing LLPs from partnerships or sole practitioners for this purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the costs order in favour of EMW Law LLP stands.