Ross v Stonewood Securities Ltd.
The costs judge's preliminary ruling on proportionality, charging rate, hours spent, and reduction of counsel's fees did not fall outside the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion. The challenges to the assessment failed as the judge applied correct legal principles and was entitled to require justification for claimed costs.
- Parties
- Claimant: Ross; Defendant: Stonewood Securities Ltd; Counsel for Claimant (appeared in Person): Gerald Levy
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 October 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Detailed Costs Assessment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detailed Assessment of Costs, Proportionality, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Legal Aid Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ross
Claimant
Stonewood Securities Ltd
Defendant
Gerald Levy
Counsel for Claimant (appeared in Person)
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Detailed Costs Assessment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Costs Judge Rogers erred in ruling the costs as disproportionate
- 2 Whether the charging rate and hours allowed were appropriate
- 3 Whether Mr Levy's fees were properly reduced
Ratio Decidendi
The costs judge's preliminary ruling on proportionality, charging rate, hours spent, and reduction of counsel's fees did not fall outside the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion. The challenges to the assessment failed as the judge applied correct legal principles and was entitled to require justification for claimed costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Costs Judge Rogers' assessment upheld
- No adjustment to charging rate or hours allowed
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