Fast track and multi-track cases are dealt with for firms of solicitors.

Many firms remain unaware of certain of the rules and legislation as to costs recovery, particularly on fast track cases. Costs, particularly in the light of case law, have become more stable.

Issues in respect of medical agency fees have also been determined following the Woollard Agreement. Shieldacre undertake preparation of costs schedules in respect of cases, costs summaries, fast track cases and the preparation of schedule of costs predictive costs and negotiations. There are further alternatives on infant settlements.

Defendants continue to raise many objections both in respect of the CSA, hourly rate, competence, necessity of work. All these issues are normally addressed in detailed points of dispute.

Rules and regulations relating to points of dispute and particular replies make it essential that both points of dispute and/or replies are composite. Shieldacre can assist on the proper preparation and the preparation of replies.

Fast Track

? Allocation: the normal track for any claim exceeding £5,000 and not exceeding £25,000 (£15,000 pre 06.04.09).
The case unlikely to last more than one day.

? CPR 46.1 The costs a Court may cover.

? CPR 46.2 The amount the Court may award.

? CPR 46.3 Power to award more or less than the amount of fast track trial costs.
see recent case law: Drew –v- Whitbread (2010 EWCA CIV53)

Predictable Costs

CPR 45.7 : Scope of cover

CPR 45.9 : The amount of recoverable costs

CPR 45.10 : Disbursements

CPR 45.11 : Success fee Kilby -v- Gawith 2008 CA 19th May – entitlement to 12.5%.

Part 36 : offers to settle and payments into Court

CPR 36.1 : Scope

CPR 36.2 : Form and content of Part 36 offer

CPR 36.3 : General provision

CPR 36.10 : Costs consequences of acceptance

Costs issues CPR 44.3

Painting -v- University of Oxford 2005 EWCA CIV 161
Straker -v- Tudor Rose 2007 EWCA CIV 365

See BAA -v- Carver 2008 EWCA CIV 412 – beating on Part 36

Note:

This appears to be either an anomaly or an oversight by Jackson LJ to seek to reverse or lay the ground for reversing this decision. The decision introduces an unwelcome degree of uncertainty into the Part 36 process. The decision as it stands puts unreasonable pressure on a Claimant to accept offers which are not quite high enough thus leaving the way open for a Defendant bonanza by being able to offer a lower sum confident in the knowledge that costs issues rather than value and entitlement will make the decision for the Claimant.

Multi-Track

Basis of assessment: see Drew -v- Whitbread (2010 EWCA CIV53). An allocation to fast track may not result in multi track costs [Aaron -v- Shelton 2004 EWHC 1162] may not be sustainable following Court of Appeal decision.

Settled at Trial

This is an area which has gained publicity in decided decisions and effects whether a 100% success fee or a 12.5% success fee is a recoverable item. Settling at the door of the Court questions whether a trial is open or not opened see case law:

Dahele -v- Thomas Bates & Son 2007 EWHC 90072
Sitapuna -v- Khan (10.12.07) (unreported)
Thenya -v- Quinn 2009 EWCA CIV151