Ask the judgesOur panel of district judges considers costs issues when suing for legal feesQ In Ask the Judges, (see [2000] Gazette, 31 May, 52) you stated that in the common case of solicitors or a sole practitioner suing to recover unpaid fees, costs are recoverable as in any other case and that Civil Procedure Rule rule 48.6 does not apply.

I was awarded costs in county court litigation which I had undertaken as a sole practitioner.

My firm - my name with '& Co' added - was on the record.

The circuit judge found that I was a litigant in person because, as a sole practitioner, I did not have a 'firm' and so could not take advantage of PD48 para 1.10.

He held that for there to be a firm, the Partnership Act definition must be satisfied: two or more people carrying on business together with a view to profit.

Accordingly, a sole practitioner could not have a firm.

What does your panel say about this?A We feel, with respect to the circuit judge, that you should have received your costs, although it may be that the point should be regarded as uncertain until some Court of Appeal authority is forthcoming.

It seems to the panel that the interpretation which the judge adopted conflicts with the overriding objective in treating a sole practitioner less favourably than a member of a partnership for no particular reason other than his literalistic view of the wording.

Our view is that rule 48.6(6), as supplemented by PD48 para 1.10, is not intended to catch a sole practitioner.

What is 'Messrs A & Co' if it is not a firm? Support for this view is to be found in CCR Ord 5 rule 10 (see CPR schedule 2).

It says a person carrying on business in a name other than his firm name may be sued in his own name 'trading as AB'.

What is AB if not a firm? Or consider CPR rule 6.5.

It provides that service on 'an individual who is suing or being sued in the name of a firm' may take place either at the usual/last known residence or at the principal/last known place of business of the firm.X The answers given are not authoritative to the extent that they should be considered binding on any court.

The panel will not enter into correspondenceE-mail your questions to: steve.jones@lawsociety.org.uk