David Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors

David Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors

The amended bill of costs is compliant with the requirements for identification of fee earners. The receiving party was entitled to serve a paper bill as the underlying litigation was not a Part 7 multi-track claim. The application to redraw the bill is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: David Brierley; Defendant: Frank Otuo; Defendant: Ruth Otuo; Defendant: Jason Adu-Gyamfi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Ruling on Application to Redraw Bill of Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Bill of Costs, Practice Direction 47, Electronic Vs Paper Bill
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Bill of Costs Practice Direction 47 Electronic Vs Paper Bill

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Brierley

Claimant

Frank Otuo

Defendant

Ruth Otuo

Defendant

Jason Adu-Gyamfi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Ruling on Application to Redraw Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended bill of costs complies with requirements for identification of fee earners
  2. 2 Whether a paper bill or electronic bill is required under CPR PD 47

Ratio Decidendi

The amended bill of costs is compliant with the requirements for identification of fee earners. The receiving party was entitled to serve a paper bill as the underlying litigation was not a Part 7 multi-track claim. The application to redraw the bill is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to redraw bill of costs dismissed
  • Costs of the application reserved to be addressed at the conclusion of the detailed assessment