Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor

Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor

A solicitor is responsible for the acts of their agents in costs proceedings, including costs draftsmen, and certifying a bill of costs with an hourly rate exceeding the contractual rate, or misrepresenting the availability of BTE insurance, constitutes unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR rule 44.11, even absent dishonesty. Such conduct warrants a sanction, here the disallowance of half the profit costs in the relevant bill. Costs for personal attendance at the appeal by a represented party are not recoverable.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty to Court, Indemnity Principle, Agency, Costs Assessment, Misrepresentation in Costs Proceedings, Sanctions for Misconduct
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Regulation Costs Solicitor's Duty to Court Indemnity Principle Agency Costs Assessment Misrepresentation in Costs Proceedings +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gempride Limited

Appellant

Jagrit Bamrah

First Respondent

Lawlords of London Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor is responsible for the acts of costs draftsmen under agency principles in costs proceedings
  2. 2 Whether certifying a bill of costs with an hourly rate exceeding the contractual rate is unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR rule 44.11
  3. 3 Whether a misrepresentation regarding the availability of BTE insurance in costs replies constitutes unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR rule 44.11

Ratio Decidendi

A solicitor is responsible for the acts of their agents in costs proceedings, including costs draftsmen, and certifying a bill of costs with an hourly rate exceeding the contractual rate, or misrepresenting the availability of BTE insurance, constitutes unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR rule 44.11, even absent dishonesty. Such conduct warrants a sanction, here the disallowance of half the profit costs in the relevant bill. Costs for personal attendance at the appeal by a represented party are not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Judge Mitchell dated 19 December 2016 quashed
  • Order of Master Leonard dated 5 March 2014 varied: half of the profit costs in Part 1 of the Claimant’s bill of costs disallowed under CPR rule 44.11