Costs Company of the Year

Harmans Costs Brief - May 2016

View this email in your browser

We only went and won it! Harmans are incredibly proud to have been named Costs Company of the Year at the Modern Claims Awards, you can see some photos from the ceremony in Leeds below. Hot on the heels of our win we held our spring seminar at The Law Society in London, it's been a very busy few weeks. Not to mention the recent London Legal Walk!

Welcome to all of our new subscribers following our costs seminar, we hope you enjoy Costs Brief. Please let us know what you think and what you'd like to see more or less of!

Many thanks, Harmans Costs

For even more news and comment visit our website www.harmanscosts.com

Harmans named Costs Company of the Year at Modern Claims 2016 Awards

Harmans are delighted and very proud to have been named winners of the Costs Company of the Year at the Doctors Chambers Modern Claims 2016 awards ceremony in Leeds on Thursday 28th April.

The Doctors Chambers Modern Claims Awards celebrate cross-industry talent and success across a range of areas in the claims industry. The judges looked at various criteria including evidence that the business has responded innovatively to market demands and has effectively and efficiently provided good value work as well as providing real benefits to clients and strategic partners.

Matthew Harman, Partner, says: â€œItâ€™s absolutely fantastic to be named as Costs Company of the Year by Modern Claims especially given the tough opposition in this category. At the end of last year we were shortlisted for a Law Society Excellence Award so to now be recognised by Modern Claims as well is very rewarding for us all at Harmans â€“ the whole team are thrilled.â€

You can download Harmans' bespoke mobile application Costs Expert now, it was a key part of their nomination and features the first ever interest calculator for the costs industry:

iPhone: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/costs-expert/id875061911?mt=8

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andr.harmans

Photographs above show some of the winning team at the Awards Ceremony in Leeds on 28 April. Right hand photograph shows from left to right: Partners John Moss, Mary Collins, Matthew Harman, Sara Gould and Gary Knight.
Fantastic photography by: neilson reeves

Part 36 indemnity costs trumps fixed costs, rules the Court of Appeal

Two low level RTA claims, relating to separate Claimants (Broadhurst and Taylor), were heard together on appeal after opposite decisions were made by judges on whether to equate indemnity costs with fixed costs.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson said that assessed costs should trump fixed costs where Claimantâ€™s secure more than they had offered to settle for.

If rules in Part 45 stood alone, the Claimant would only be entitled to fixed costs and disbursements. The fact of the matter was that the Part 45 rules did not stand alone.

Lord Dyson did not consider that there was any doubt as to the true meaning of the rules within Part 36 & 45 of the CPR and the tension between these rules was clearly resolved in favour of rule 36.14A.

This ruling gives Claimants an extra incentive to make protective Part 36 offers in low value personal injury RTA, Employer Liability and Public Liability claims where fixed costs are the starting point.

Partner and Costs Lawyer Gary Knight responds to questions raised by Rachel Rothwell, Editor of Litigation Funding, for forthcoming publication

1. To what extent has the costs profession evolved since its inception, and have there been any key milestones of particular significance?

I started in costs in 1983 â€“ even then the rules applied to costs were being scrutinised with a proposed simpler format being introduced limiting the number of â€œchargeable items.â€ I was advised that we (Costs Draftsmen as we were then known) had â€œabout 5 yearsâ€ before the need for costs draftsmen was redundant as the new bills would be much easier to prepare and would be dealt with by Solicitors. At that time the fees for drawing bills was not recoverable between the parties and we were looked at as a necessary evil.

Gary answers more questions about the challenges faced by the costs profession and what the future holds - read his thoughts here.

Claimants lose QOCS protection for "fundamental dishonesty"

In a landmark case Horwich Farrelly, has successfully employed Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA) to secure the first finding of fundamental dishonesty under the extended provisions contained within the legislation. The matter, which involved three claimants including a professional boxer, saw the claims dismissed in full and an order to repay the insurerâ€™s legal costs of Â£6,100.

Whilst some fundamental dishonesty provisions have been in place since the â€˜Jackson Reformsâ€™ of 2013, the CJCA 2015 provides much greater scope for sanctions to be applied to insurance fraudsters. Where a claim made after 13 April 2015 is found to be fundamentally dishonest in any part the court must now dismiss the whole claim â€“ even if it includes a genuine element â€“ unless to do so would cause â€˜substantial injusticeâ€™.

A finding of fundamental dishonesty under the Act also results in the claimant automatically losing qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protection, allowing a defendant to apply for recovery of its costs.

In the case of Hughes, Kindon and Jones v KGM, heard on 1 April 2016 at Taunton County Court, all three claimants alleged they had suffered injuries lasting 12 months, despite what was a very minor incident with the insurerâ€™s policyholder.

Read the rest of the article here.

We were delighted with the feedback following our costs seminar at The Law Society on 5 May - it was rated as either good or excellent by all of our attendees.

If you couldn't be there on the night the notes and resources used by our speakers are now available to view on our website .

Our seminars are free and open to all clients but spaces are limited. Our latest seminar was fully booked in record time, if you missed out this time then make sure you sign up for future alerts - register your interest for future Harmans costs seminars by emailing vikki.knight@harmanscosts.com

Are you a regular visitor to all of these useful blogs and websites? If not, you should be!

Court of Protection plans to shift costs away from vulnerable individuals

The Court of Protection is considering giving judges more power to decide who should cover the legal costs in disputes over an incapacitated personâ€™s property, affairs or care.

Under existing rules, the costs for these disputes are normally paid out of the incapacitated personâ€™s estate, although in some exceptional circumstances judges can deviate from this rule.

Under the changes now being considered, judges would be given greater scope to order those who are actively involved in the dispute â€“ often family members of the incapacitated person â€“ to pay these costs.

Supreme Court allows appeal over introduction of civil legal aid residence test

R (on the application of The Public Law Project) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) Case ID: UKSC 2015/0255

The plan by the Ministry of Justice to introduce its controversial civil legal aid residence test through secondary legislation â€“ the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014 â€“ was ultra vires the enabling statute, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The decision by a seven-justice panel of the Court to allow the Public Law Projectâ€™s appeal in R (on the application of The Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor was made known at the end of the first day of the hearing. Full written reasons are to be given in due course.

FREE LEGAL COSTS ADVICE!

Follow us on Twitter @HarmansCosts for the latest industry comment. Feel free to tweet or DM our legal costs experts a question.

Twitter

Website