Firm sees off MoD allegation of 'inflating' claims costs

The Ministry of Defence has suffered a defeat in the costs court after trying to suggest that a law firm had over-inflated its schedule of costs.

It had been claimed in Henderson & Anor v Ministry of Defence that Hugh James, the firm leading thousands of hearing loss claims, had tried to ‘induce the paying party to overpay’ by sending schedules of costs that were much higher than the bills finally produced.

The national firm denied any form of unambiguous impropriety – the legal test applied by the judge – and maintained that the schedules were accurate estimates of all the costs incurred and payable.

Costs Judge Whalan accepted there was a difference between the schedules and later bills but concluded that the MoD’s allegations that schedules included costs not actually incurred was incorrect.

He said: ‘The breakdowns contained no fundamental errors of calculation and there was no misrepresentation.

‘The schedules represented the claimants’ actual incurred costs and any inconsistency in the claimants’ without prejudice and subsequent open positions was a long way short of any form of CPR44.11 misconduct.’

He added that the MoD’s case ‘falls a long way short’ of demonstrating impropriety and that the defendant was not entitled able to rely on the schedules during part-heard detailed assessment of the final bills.