Report comment

Paragraph 33 of the judgement says:
'It must be made clear that the Defendant's application was under rule 44.11. It was an application to disallow in full the Claimant's solicitor's costs served to reduce the bill from £182,212 to nil.'

Paragraph 39 of the judgement says:
'There is mention in the judgment of rule 44.3B (1). There was discussion of this rule during the detailed assessment hearing and in the Deputy Master's judgment at paragraphs 17 and 18. Nevertheless, there was no ground of appeal based on this rule. Ground one is specific in referring to "Mis-certification and Lack of Proper Sanction under CPR 44.11." [The only reference to 44.3(B) (1), is, along with some other rules, a reference to the allegation of breach of mandatory provisions of CPR]. Therefore, this rule does not arise for consideration in this appeal.'

In my humble opinion, the Defendant should have appealed based on CPR 44.3B(1) - in other words, they should have applied to disallow the Claimant's success fee so as to reduce the bill by £14,366.73 + VAT.