super muppets

MJ Cockx's interest in costs negotiators is beginning to look more like an obsession (see [2001] Gazette, 29 November, 18).

Mr Cockx would do well to re-read the judgment of Judge Edwards, in the initial appeal in Callery v Gray, January 29, 2001 - in which his firm represented the claimant - and the comments made about the claimant's basic costs being 'slashed almost in half' and the fact that 'no court can cope with a whole string of lengthy detailed assessments in cases where there are bulk issuers'.

Furthermore, the Senior Costs Judge, Peter Hurst, in his General Guidance for Costs-Only Proceedings, stated that 'the new procedure [rule 44,12A] appears to be being misused by both claimants and defendants in breach of the overriding objective.

This misuse has given rise to difficulties for district judges'.

He said that proceedings under part 44.12A should only be brought where 'the parties (after a proper attempt at agreement) have failed to agree the amount of costs'.

Mr Cockx goes on to state that his firm is now 'muppet-free' and does not deal with 'unqualified school leavers'.

These comments might be understandable if they simply stemmed from his own prejudices and ignorance.

They are less easy to understand when one knows that he employs an ex-costs negotiator from my firm as a fee-earner.

Therefore, he is fully aware that many costs negotiators are highly qualified and well trained.Simon Gibbs, negotiations manager, Legal Costs Negotiators, London