Pendelbury ruling allows only simple wasted costs cases

Lawyers should only be sued for wasted costs where there is a straightforward case that can be summarily heard, the High Court has ruled.

In B v Pendelbury and Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Turner held that an application for wasted costs should fail because the case would have taken too long and overstretched the summary wasted costs procedure.

He said wasted costs hearings should not result in complex proceedings with detailed investigations.

He acknowledged that the case might be controversial, saying: 'I am not insensitive to the apparent paradox that in a complex case - in which there are complex areas of disputed fact and possible fraud which would call for decision - the legal representative may appear to be in a more comfortable position than is the case in a simpler, less expensive, situation.'

Sarah Clover, partner and head of solicitors' professional indemnity at City firm Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, who acted for the lawyer, said the judgement reflected the intention of the legislation: 'The procedure is for quick and summary cases where the facts are clear and this wasn't one of them.'

City firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain acted for the applicants.

Jeremy Fleming