Julian Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor

Julian Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor

There is no sound basis for the Claimant’s challenges to the retainer arrangements between the Second Defendant and DAS Law; the Second Defendant is not entitled to recover all costs not exclusively incurred for the First Defendant, and division of specific common costs is required. The approved costs budget is irrelevant for assessment purposes except as a cap, and costs must be assessed on usual principles without reference to budgeted figures.

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 / Interlocutory Judgment on Retainer Validity, Division of Costs, and Budgeting
Outcome
Retainer challenge dismissed; division of costs required; budget disregarded for assessment except as cap.
Legal Topics
Retainer Validity, Indemnity Principle, Division of Costs, Costs Budgeting, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa)
Civil Procedure Costs Retainer Validity Indemnity Principle Division of Costs Costs Budgeting Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa)

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 7 Authorities cited 15 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 / Interlocutory Judgment on Retainer Validity, Division of Costs, and Budgeting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of retainer between Second Defendant and DAS Law
  2. 2 Entitlement to recover costs incurred by First Defendant
  3. 3 Division of common costs between defendants

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sound basis for the Claimant’s challenges to the retainer arrangements between the Second Defendant and DAS Law; the Second Defendant is not entitled to recover all costs not exclusively incurred for the First Defendant, and division of specific common costs is required. The approved costs budget is irrelevant for assessment purposes except as a cap, and costs must be assessed on usual principles without reference to budgeted figures.

Court Disposition

Retainer challenge dismissed; division of costs required; budget disregarded for assessment except as cap.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment to proceed with division of specific common costs up to 5 June 2018.
  • Costs after 5 June 2018 to be assessed without reference to budget.