Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 36 (SCCO) (12 January 2023)

Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 36 (SCCO) (12 January 2023)

There is no sound basis to challenge the validity of the retainer between the Second Defendant and DAS Law; the indemnity principle is satisfied. Costs incurred for both Defendants prior to 5 June 2018 must be divided, not treated as wholly recoverable by the Second Defendant. The approved costs budget is irrelevant for assessment as it does not distinguish between Defendants' costs; assessment must proceed on usual principles without reference to the budget.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 36 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: Julian Reed; First Defendant: Woodward Property Developments Ltd; Second Defendant: Anthony Woodward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Trial, Detailed Assessment Hearing
Outcome
Claimant's challenges to the retainer and costs budget rejected; detailed assessment to proceed with division of costs up to 5 June 2018 and assessment on usual principles thereafter.
Legal Topics
Retainer Validity, Indemnity Principle, Division of Costs, Costs Budgeting, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Legal Expenses Insurance (lei), Detailed Assessment Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Retainer Validity Indemnity Principle Division of Costs Costs Budgeting Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Legal Expenses Insurance (lei) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Reed

Claimant

Woodward Property Developments Ltd

First Defendant

Anthony Woodward

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Trial, Detailed Assessment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retainer between the Second Defendant and DAS Law was valid for the purposes of costs recovery
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant seeks to recover costs incurred by the First Defendant, who has no right to recover from the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant can rely on the approved costs budget or if there is good reason to depart from it

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sound basis to challenge the validity of the retainer between the Second Defendant and DAS Law; the indemnity principle is satisfied. Costs incurred for both Defendants prior to 5 June 2018 must be divided, not treated as wholly recoverable by the Second Defendant. The approved costs budget is irrelevant for assessment as it does not distinguish between Defendants' costs; assessment must proceed on usual principles without reference to the budget.

Court Disposition

Claimant's challenges to the retainer and costs budget rejected; detailed assessment to proceed with division of costs up to 5 June 2018 and assessment on usual principles thereafter.

Orders

  • Directions hearing to be arranged to determine proportional and cost-effective conclusion of the detailed assessment.
  • Parties encouraged to discuss and agree on efficient resolution.