Hallam Estates Ltd & Anor v Baker
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal regarding the detailed assessment of costs after defamation proceedings were dismissed. The paying parties (claimants) sought an extension of time to file points of dispute, which was initially granted by a costs judge, then overturned by the High Court and subsequently restored by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the claimants' application for an extension was not a request for relief from sanctions and that reasonable extensions of time should be granted if they do not disrupt proceedings. The issuance of a default costs certificate was deemed inappropriate as points of dispute were served before the request for such a certificate.
Judgment
Lord Justice Jackson:
This judgment is in five parts, namely:
Part 1. Introduction paragraphs 2 to 8 Part 2. The history of the proceedings paragraphs 9 to 22 Part 3. Did the judge err in reversing the costs judge’s decision? paragraphs 23 to 34 Part 4. Did the judge err in directing that a default costs certificate be issued? paragraphs 35 to 37 Part 5. Executive summary paragraphs 38 to 40
Part 1. Introduction
This appeal arises out of proceedings for the detailed assessment of costs. The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this appeal are whether the costs judge was dealing with relief from sanctions and whether he exercised his case management discretion in a proper manner.
Hallam Estates Limited and Michael Stainer were claimants in the underlying litigation. They are the paying parties in the detailed assessment proceedings. They were the applicants for an extension of time before the costs judge. They were respondents in the application to set aside and they were respondents in the appeal to the High Court. They are appellants in this court. I shall refer to them as the claimants.
Ms Teresa Baker was defendant in the underlying litigation. She is receiving party in the detailed assessment proceedings. She was respondent in the application for extension of time, but applicant in the application to set aside. She was appellant in the appeal to the High Court, but is respondent in this court. I shall refer to her as the defendant.
All references in this judgment to “rules” are to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 as amended. Rule 47.9 provides:
“ Points of dispute and consequence of not serving
(1) The paying party and any other party to the detailed assessment proceedings may dispute any item in the bill of costs by serving points of dispute on –
(a) the receiving party; and
(b) every other party to the detailed assessment proceedings.
(2) The period for serving points of dispute is 21 days after the date of service of the notice of commencement.
(3) If a party serves points of dispute after the period set out in paragraph (2), that party may not be heard further in the detailed assessment proceedings unless the court gives permission.
(Practice Direction 47 sets out requirements about the form of points of dispute.)
(4) The rece