Cost appealsThree recent decisions of the Supreme Court Taxing Office in cost appeals nos 15-17 of 2000 have highlighted a number of important points15 of 2000: MacDougall & Ors v Boote Edgar EsterkinThis appeal considered the provision of RSC Ord 62 rule 15 regarding costs payable to a solicitor by his own client.It was held that for consent to be implied under rule 15(2), the client's approval had to be secured following a full and fair explanation of the factors relevant to the solicitor's costs for work done.

This included an explanation as to party and party and solicitor/ client costs and the approach of the taxing officer; an explanation of party and party charging rate; a solicitor's client charging rate; calculation of an interim funding; updates on costs incurred at set times and an explanation as to the issues arising from retrospective fixing of the solicitor/client rate for hours previously to be remunerated as on taxation and prospective fixing of charging rates for hours yet to be charged.16 of 2000: Matthews v Dorkin & Motor Insurers BureauThis case involved an appeal from an assessment between the parties by a deputy costs judge of the claimant's costs of a successful action against the defendants arising from an accident claim.

In particular junior counsel appealed the provisional assessment of his brief fee, which had been reduced by 1,000.

The leader's brief fee had also been provisionally assessed at a pro rata reduction of 20%, and he did not appeal against the assessment.Junior counsel accepted that his brief fee was not a negotiated fee and that his clerk had originally submitted a claim for half his leader's fee; however, he criticised the deputy costs judge for not taking into account the allowances made in another similar case and for making comparison with a claimant's counsel's fees with those of the defendants' counsel.

It was held that the proper approach was to look at the time spent and work actually carried out.

The court's view was that since these were not negotiated fees and junior counsel's fee had been submitted at 50% of his leader's fee, it was impossible to criticise the deputy cost judge's approach and therefore no increase was granted on the brief fee.

17 of 2000: Cullen v Freed & OrsThis case involved a review of the claimant's solicitor's costs, specifically enhancement.

The claimant's solicitor's bill claimed profit costs at prescribed rates, plus enhancement of 67%.

On taxation the district judge allowed all prescribed rates but refused any enhancement.

The claimant's solicitor objected and the district judge affirmed his decision, ruling that the decision whether to grant enhancement was discretionary and such discretion should be exercised in the light of all circumstances.The district judge specified the circumstances relating to the case and on appeal the learned judge accepted the principles which the district judge had acted upon but did not accept the way in which he had applied them.The court held that it is necessary to consider the various factors set out in reg 5(3) of the Legal Aid in Civil Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1994 and as such allowed an enhancement of 33% on all profit costs in the bill with the exception of one item where a higher enhancement of 75% was awarded.l The Supreme Court Taxing Office (SCTO) prepares summaries of recent cost appeals, copies of which are available from the Law Society, tel: 0870 606 2511.