Lumsdon & Ors v Legal Services Board

Lumsdon & Ors v Legal Services Board

There was no compelling reason or material change in circumstances to justify varying the PCO set by Ouseley J at £150,000. The claimants' new indemnity, the Law Society's intervention, and the LSB's revised costs estimate did not warrant a reduction. The application to require costs budgets was also refused as inappropriate where a PCO is in place.

Parties
Claimant: Katherine Jane Lumsdon; Claimant: Rufus Taylor; Claimant: David Howker QC; Claimant: Christopher Hewertson; Defendant: Legal Services Board; Interested Party: General Council of the Bar (acting by the Bar Standards Board); Interested Party: Solicitors Regulation Authority; Interested Party: ILEX Professional Standards; Interested Party: The Law Society of England and Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Vary Protective Costs Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Order, Judicial Review, Costs Management
Civil Procedure Protective Costs Order Judicial Review Costs Management

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katherine Jane Lumsdon

Claimant

Rufus Taylor

Claimant

David Howker QC

Claimant

Christopher Hewertson

Claimant

Legal Services Board

Defendant

General Council of the Bar (acting by the Bar Standards Board)

Interested Party

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Interested Party

ILEX Professional Standards

Interested Party

The Law Society of England and Wales

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Vary Protective Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a compelling reason to vary the Protective Costs Order (PCO) from £150,000 to £75,000
  2. 2 Whether the LSB and BSB should be required to file costs budgets

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason or material change in circumstances to justify varying the PCO set by Ouseley J at £150,000. The claimants' new indemnity, the Law Society's intervention, and the LSB's revised costs estimate did not warrant a reduction. The application to require costs budgets was also refused as inappropriate where a PCO is in place.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application to reduce the costs cap from £150,000 to £75,000 is refused.
  • The application to require the LSB and BSB to submit costs budgets is refused.