Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367 (21 June 2018)

Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367 (21 June 2018)

Ms Bamrah's conduct did not amount to 'unreasonable or improper' conduct under CPR rule 44.11, as she relied on Lawlords who acted contrary to her instructions, and she had no intention to mislead; errors in the bill and replies were not attributable to her for the purposes of the rule.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 1367
Parties
Appellant: Gempride Limited; First Respondent: Jagrit Bamrah; Second Respondent: Lawlords of London Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application under CPR rule 44.11 dismissed.
Legal Topics
CPR Rule 44.11 Misconduct, Indemnity Principle, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Professional Duties to Court
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Costs CPR Rule 44.11 Misconduct Indemnity Principle Detailed Assessment of Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Professional Duties to Court

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

Parties

Gempride Limited

Appellant

Jagrit Bamrah

First Respondent

Lawlords of London Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Bamrah's conduct in certifying the bill of costs and replying to Points of Dispute was 'unreasonable or improper' under CPR rule 44.11
  2. 2 Whether Lawlords' actions could be attributed to Ms Bamrah for the purposes of CPR rule 44.11
  3. 3 Whether the hourly rate certified breached the indemnity principle

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Bamrah's conduct did not amount to 'unreasonable or improper' conduct under CPR rule 44.11, as she relied on Lawlords who acted contrary to her instructions, and she had no intention to mislead; errors in the bill and replies were not attributable to her for the purposes of the rule.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application under CPR rule 44.11 dismissed.

Orders

  • Gempride's application under CPR rule 44.11 dismissed.
  • Gempride ordered to pay Ms Bamrah's costs of the application before the Master and the appeal on an indemnity basis.