- In Practice
- In Business
- Moving On
Judge warns claimant firm on costs ‘manipulation’
A judge has warned law firms that courts will not tolerate attempts to change court orders for their own advantage.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart told claimant firm Rosling King last week that it was verging on ‘contumelious’ [insulting] to produce a draft that its clients would prefer but which ignored court instructions.
In a hearing last week, he said: ‘In my judgement, what occurred in this case must not happen again.
‘Solicitors and counsel are to give effect to court orders; they are not to attempt to manipulate them to their own or their client's perceived advantage.’
The problem stemmed from a draft order sent last year by Rosling King to defendant firm RPC three days after an order given in the Technology and Construction Court. The judge had ordered for costs to be broken down in stages in case the claim failed at an early stage.
Edwards-Stuart said the claimant draft ‘bore almost no relation to what I had directed’ and it was subsequently rejected by RPC, which sent back its own draft.
Rosling King returned the defendant’s draft with extensive amendments and subsequently wrote to the court explaining that it had ‘great difficult’ drafting the order in a way to satisfy the court’s wishes.
Edwards-Stuart said: ‘What Rosling King did in this case was to produce an order that reflected the directions that they or their clients would like to have, and not the directions that the court in fact ordered.
‘That is wholly unacceptable: it is not just unreasonable, it is verging on the contumelious.’
In his judgment, Justice Edwards-Stuart ordered the claimants to pay £6,925 to the defendants’ solicitors within 14 days to recover costs unnecessarily incurred by the delays.
He added: ‘I see no reason at all why the defendants should have to pay the costs that were quite unnecessarily incurred as a result of the claimants’ manoeuvres.’
He rejected claimant submissions that extra costs incurred formed part of the costs reserved to the trial judge, or that the defendant should have made a claim for costs sooner.
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- PI firm turns to fixed-price mediation for post-Jackson world
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west PI paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Criminal legal aid cuts to reach £370m
- SRA’s popularity slips
- Traffic courts to be set up
- Economy 'testing access to justice'
- MoJ plans crackdown on ‘so-called’ experts
- Midlands ABS issues ‘join us’ offer to insurers
- Law Society Excellence Awards now open for nomination
- Desperate PI firms breaking referral fee ban – AXA chief
- Jurors ‘confused’ on new media contempt
- End-to-end negligence defence practice sets up as ABS
- Grayling says no to regulating will-writing
- Society and bar join hands against criminal justice plans
- 100 jobs at risk as BLP seeks 15% salary cost cut
- Bar Council picks a former mandarin