Reduce Legal costs for not being proportionate

Proportionality Test under civil procedure rules is a powerful tool to remove over-inflated costs solicitors - please email [email protected] if want tools to argue being asked to pay what opponent was never asked to pay (retainer challenge or breach of indemnity rule)

1. Paying Party’s Submissions on proportionality

2. 4Jan20 order, ﺑ 5 invitation to “step-back” Decisions reached on & before 10 Dec 20

3. Rules post-Apr 2013 apply (proceedings commenced Mar 2015) Rule 1.1(1) – These rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Rule 44.3(5) Costs are proportionate if, and only if, the costs incurred bear a reasonable relationship to: (a) the sum in issue in proceedings (b) the value of any non-monetary relief in issue in the proceedings (c) the complexity of the litigation (d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party; and (e) any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance Stage 1 (Standard and Indemnity) – CPR 44.4(1), 44.3(5) – reasonable? Stage 2 (Standard only) – total figure proportionate?

4. Sources used for identifying legal test in CPR44.3(5) reform (post-Apr 2013) “costs incurred are proportionate if and only if they bear a reasonable relationship to …“ – CPR 44.3(5) & CPR 44.4 Factors

5. “Proportionality” defined in context of “adjectival law” “costs incurred are proportionate if and only if they bear a reasonable relationship to …“ – CPR 44.3(5) & CPR 44.4 Factors

6. Disproportionate, even if they have been reasonably and necessarily incurred (PoD#7) “… stand back at the end and, if the costs are not proportionate … reduce the overall amount to the figure that the court determines to be proportionate by application of the CPR44.3(5) factors”

7. Excluded from step-back to check proportionality Indemnity Costs, Court fees, VAT (unavoidable)

8. “Complexity”, “Sum in Issue”, “Conduct” & other wider factors applying CPR 44.3(5) factors (c), (a)&(b) then (d) in order of relveance wider - CPR1.1(2)(f) [ CPR 45.1(2)(iv), Table 2 of CPR45.4 & CPR45.37] & CPR44.3(2) and CPR44.4(3)(a)(ii)

9. Simple debt action so reduce all costs to £250 (except 16/6 to 19/8/16) Proportionate to simply order delivery-up of statute bills

10. Not proportionate £26k value to subjugate substantive legal to resolving nil-value adjectival law Proportionate to consent to amend inc offer to pay costs of SJ application

11. Paying Party conduct - during 10Feb16 to 22Sept17 – subs of Receiving Party see Transcript & already dealt with by £8,045 indemnity costs during periods: 4 & 5

12. Reduce £19,764 costs (Parts 1-3, 6-9) to £250 due to CPR44 & 1(2) factors Paras 73 to 78 of West decision - sign-posted in CPR44.3(2) eg

13. Conclusion – only £250 of £19,764 (Pts 1-3, 6-9) bears reasonable r’ship to 44.3(5) & wider factors Reduce costs assessed on standard basis for periods in parts 1 to 3, part of 4 & 6 to 9 of bill

14. A Justice system that tolerates excess is on-hold Until Fixed-Costs finally arrive, Proportionality principle is our last hope for turn back from “US-excess” values justice system towards Japanese minimalistic-values!