One of the most eagerly anticipated appeals (that is, in the world of legal costs) has now been adjourned until October 2017. Joe Rose, Costs Lawyer at PIC, explains the burning issues and delay impact for clients.
The two burning issues in BNM v MGN are:
- Does the new proportionality test apply to additional liabilities?
- If (1.) applies above, should it be applied in the round (together with the rest of the costs) or on their own?
We have already received requests from various Paying Parties to leave our cases in abeyance until a Judgment is received in this case. We are rejecting these requests outright for a number of reasons.
Firstly, our London Office at PIC are 2 for 2 in arguing at the Senior Court Costs Office that the Court should depart from the principle set out in BNM.
Secondly, this is not a situation like Simcoe v Jacuzzi back in 2012 when Costs Lawyers were waiting to be told what date interest would be calculated from. Yes it will resolve two issues, but it will not provide a clear answer as to whether or not any case is or isn’t proportionate. This means that entering into such an agreement will simply delay matters and the backlog would cause enormous stress on a Courts System that is already overburdened and underfunded.
Most importantly, entering into such an agreement with a Paying Party would cause excessive lock-up for our clients and cause economic uncertainty without any merit whatsoever.
If you have any questions on reducing lock-up or any other costs recovery issues, simply contact your instructing Costs Lawyer / Costs Draftsman at PIC who will be able to assist you. Alternatively, contact us at email@example.com or call us now on 03458 72 76 78.