Giambrone & Ors v JMC Holidays [2002] EWHC 9022 (Costs) (22 March 2002)
The Judge held that £1 per generic letter for paralegal work was insufficient and allowed £3.30 per letter. The 65% uplift for paralegal work, as opposed to 120% for solicitors, was upheld as appropriate. The Judge reversed the order requiring disclosure of the indemnity principle witness statement to the paying...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] EWHC 9022 (Costs)
- Parties
- Claimant: Anita Giambrone & Ors; Defendant: JMC Holidays
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Judge's Preliminary Rulings Before Detailed Assessment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Uplift for Fee Earners, Paralegal Work, Indemnity Principle, Disclosure of Witness Statements
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anita Giambrone & Ors
Claimant
JMC Holidays
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Judge's Preliminary Rulings Before Detailed Assessment
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate allowance for paralegal work on generic/circular letters
- 2 Differential uplift for paralegal versus solicitor work pre-CPR
- 3 Proper procedure for disclosure of witness statements regarding the indemnity principle
Ratio Decidendi
The Judge held that £1 per generic letter for paralegal work was insufficient and allowed £3.30 per letter. The 65% uplift for paralegal work, as opposed to 120% for solicitors, was upheld as appropriate. The Judge reversed the order requiring disclosure of the indemnity principle witness statement to the paying party, holding that such disclosure should first be to the judge alone in accordance with the Costs Practice Direction.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Allowance for paralegal work on generic letters set at £3.30 per letter
- 65% uplift for paralegal work upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment