12KBW has a team of specialists in costs disputes predominantly, but not exclusively, arising from personal injury litigation. This team regularly appears in high-value detailed assessments in the Senior Courts Costs Office, as well as arguing both technical and general costs points at all levels from the County Court to the Supreme Court.

Most 12KBW barristers are regularly instructed at costs management hearings and on other costs issues, such as the consequences of Part 36 offers and litigation arising from the Jackson Reforms, including qualified one-way costs shifting (“QOCS”).  Regardless of the size of the case, our barristers instructed in substantive claims can also argue the important points relating to costs and budgets, removing the need to instruct separate costs lawyers.

The head of the team, Andrew Roy, sits as a Deputy Costs Judge of the Senior Courts. Costs Judge Jason Rowley of the SCCO is the former Chief Executive of 12KBW. Several of our costs barristers sit as civil judges, giving them added insight into costs issues.

12KBW’s costs barristers give realistic and practical advice to both receiving and paying parties.  In detailed assessments arising from concluded personal injury cases, instructing a PI barrister with a costs specialism means that the barrister understands the underlying litigation.  This can be of great value to clients on both sides of a costs dispute.

Over the last 25 years our barristers have been instructed in key cases concerning the enforceability of conditional fee agreements, success fees, fixed costs budgets, the level of ATE premiums, interest on costs, solicitors’ hourly rates in high value cases, and the relevance of costs estimates.

Notable recent 12KBW costs cases include:

  • Ho v Adelekun (No. 2) ­[2020] EWCA Civ 517; [2020] Costs LR 317 (whether QOCS precludes set off of a defendant’s costs against a claimant’s. Appeal heard by the Supreme Court in June; judgment pending.)
  • Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50; [2015] 1 WLR 3485 (landmark Supreme Court decision on the compatibility of CFA uplifts and ATE insurance premiums with the ECHR).
  • Ho v Adelekun (No. 1) ­[2019] EWCA Civ 1988; [2020] RTR 6; [2019] Costs LR 1963  (important appeal on the application of the fixed costs regime.)
  • Deepchand v Sooben [2020] EWCA 1409; [2020] Costs LR 1633 (appeal as the correct costs order following the refusal of a non-party costs order on the grounds of proportionality).
  • Shaw v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough [2014] EWCA Civ 1678; [2015] PIQR P8 (appeal on effect of a non-compliant Part 36 offer).
  • Finsbury Food Group Plc v Dover [2020] EWHC 2176 (QB); [2020] 1 WLR 4496; [2020] Costs LR 1035 (appeal as to the recoverability of counsel’s fees under the fixed costs regime.)
  • Page v RGC Restaurants Ltd [2018] EWHC 2688 (QB); [2019] 1 W.L.R. 22 (appeal on the effect of incomplete costs budgets).
  • NJL v PTE [2018] EWHC 3570 (QB); [2018] 6 Costs LR 1389 (appeal on success fees in catastrophic claims).
  • Higgins & Co Lawyers Ltd v Evans [2019] EWHC 2809 (QB); [2020] 1 WLR 141 (appeal on CFA enforceability)
  • Marsh v Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 3185 (QB) (effect of change in the discount rate on Part 36 offer).
  • GL v PM [2018] EWHC 2268 (QB) (appeal on security for costs and QOCS).
View Costs Barristers

Costs news & articles