Harris & Anor v Moat Housing Group-South Ltd

Detailed assessment proceedings ordinarily require the receiving party to bring forward the whole costs claim arising under the relevant costs order. Where assessment has been completed, a further bill cannot be used to reopen the claim. The same principle applies where the claim is compromised, subject to the true construction of the compromise. A later claim remains possible where the earlier notice, bill or agreement clearly reserved costs arising from other work or another costs order. Knowledge that further costs exist does not, by itself, prevent a compromise from settling the costs claimed under the relevant orders.

The claimants appealed a decision of Master Haworth concerning the assessment of costs awarded to them in earlier Court of Appeal proceedings. Different solicitors had acted for them at different stages. One firm submitted bills which were subsequently compromised, while another firm later served a further notice and bill covering costs said to arise under several Court of Appeal orders. The central issues were whether the later bill was permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules and whether the earlier correspondence had compromised the claim to costs under the relevant orders.

1. Appeal dismissed. Master Haworth was right to dismiss the request to assess the bill served on 19 August 2005.

2. Detailed assessment proceedings are commenced by serving a notice of commencement and the bill of costs. The bill is the receiving party’s statement of the costs claimed under the relevant order. Where more than one solicitor has acted, the costs attributable to each solicitor should be included separately. If assessment is completed and a final certificate is issued, the receiving party cannot commence a further assessment for omitted costs. The approach in Hyman and Teff v Segalov [1952] P 241 remains applicable under the Civil Procedure Rules.

3. Where costs are settled, the decisive question is what the parties agreed. A settlement limited expressly to costs already claimed, while reserving further costs, would not prevent a later assessment. Conversely, an agreement settling the receiving party’s costs under particular orders prevents recovery of further costs omitted from the bills.

4. The June 2005 notices and bills presented claims for the appellants’ costs under the possession and injunction proceedings. The August correspondence compromised the appellants’ costs under the relevant orders, notwithstanding that the respondent knew that another firm had incurred costs and that the bills did not include them. The certificates identifying the costs claimed from the particular firm did not alter the scope of the compromise.

5. The compromise did not cover Court of Appeal order 2005/0038, because that order was not mentioned in the notices, bills or correspondence. Mr Harris remained entitled in principle to serve a fresh notice and bill confined to costs recoverable under that order. The bill actually served sought a further assessment under a different order and was therefore properly dismissed.

6. Any mistake as to the scope of the compromise did not justify avoiding the agreement. It was not shown to be a common mistake, nor that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of it, or had acted inequitably.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The appeal from Master Haworth's decision of 31 May 2007 was dismissed. The court held that the later bill could not initiate a second assessment under the orders already compromised, while preserving the possibility of a fresh claim under order 2005/0038.