In a horrible week (hebdomada horribilis?) for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, a small victory. The regulator persuaded the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to amend its order that it pay ‘in principle’ the costs of Carter-Ruck solicitor Claire Gill following the dismissal of its SLAPP prosecution last month.
Costs, of course, are normally assessed on a standard or indemnity basis. After the SDT’s ex tempore decision, Ben Williams KC, for Gill, and George McDonald, for the SRA, joined forces to argue that the words ‘in principle’ could confuse the subsequent assessment hearing. Williams told the tribunal the costs judge cannot decide the basis of assessment and invited the tribunal to decide ‘one way or another’.
McDonald agreed: ‘It is something the tribunal needs to decide. Otherwise, me and Mr Williams may be back in a year’s time arguing what “in principle” means. It is helpful to have a bit more guidance for the costs judge.’
The panel returned after further deliberations and restated its decision: costs ‘subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis unless otherwise agreed’. For its written reasons, watch this space.
1 Reader's comment