Cohen v Fine & Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch) (01 December 2020)

Cohen v Fine & Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch) (01 December 2020)

The District Judge erred by failing to conduct an item-by-item assessment of the claimant's costs and instead imposed an arbitrary global figure, contrary to binding authority. The correct approach requires detailed consideration of the breakdown of costs, especially where assessment is on the indemnity basis. The appeal court substituted its own summary assessment after a line-by-line review.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Harvey Cohen (as executor of Eric Hermes, Deceased); First Defendant: Marion Fine; Second Defendant: Shelley Hermes; Third Defendant: Jonathan Hermes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Judge's Summary Assessment of Costs / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Judge's summary assessment set aside; costs reassessed.
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Indemnity Basis, Guideline Hourly Rates, Overriding Objective, CPR 46.3, CPR 44.3, CPR 44.4
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Summary Assessment of Costs Indemnity Basis Guideline Hourly Rates Overriding Objective CPR 46.3 CPR 44.3 +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvey Cohen (as executor of Eric Hermes, Deceased)

Claimant

Marion Fine

First Defendant

Shelley Hermes

Second Defendant

Jonathan Hermes

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From District Judge's Summary Assessment of Costs / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the District Judge's summary assessment of costs at £27,000 correct in law?
  2. 2 Should costs be assessed on the indemnity basis with proper item-by-item consideration?
  3. 3 Did the District Judge err by imposing her own tariff rather than assessing the detailed breakdown of costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred by failing to conduct an item-by-item assessment of the claimant's costs and instead imposed an arbitrary global figure, contrary to binding authority. The correct approach requires detailed consideration of the breakdown of costs, especially where assessment is on the indemnity basis. The appeal court substituted its own summary assessment after a line-by-line review.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Judge's summary assessment set aside; costs reassessed.

Orders

  • District Judge's summary assessment of £27,000 set aside.
  • Claimant's costs of and leading up to the hearing before the District Judge summarily assessed at £35,703.