Tasleem v Beverley

Under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, costs-only proceedings are distinct from the detailed assessment proceedings that follow a costs order. A default costs certificate under CPR rule 47.11 covers the costs to which it relates and the prescribed costs of commencing detailed assessment. It does not dispose of the costs of issuing the Part 8 claim. Those costs remain subject to the court’s discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. A claimant should be neither worse nor better off for using the costs-only procedure, and costs already covered by the detailed assessment regime must not be claimed again.

Two low-value personal injury claims settled before proceedings were issued. The parties agreed that reasonable costs were payable, but disagreed about the claimants’ after-the-event insurance premiums. The claimants brought Part 8 costs-only proceedings and obtained default costs certificates for the premiums and prescribed certificate costs. They then sought summary assessment of the costs of the Part 8 proceedings.

Deputy District Judge Starke awarded those costs. His Honour Judge Coltart dismissed the defendants’ appeals on 25 February 2013. The conjoined second appeals concerned whether payment under a default costs certificate exhausted the claimants’ costs entitlement or whether the Part 8 costs could be separately awarded.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The substantive judgment was given by Lady Justice Sharp, with whom Lady Justice Hallett and the Chancellor of the High Court agreed.
2. The relevant rules distinguish between detailed assessment proceedings and the proceedings, whether under Part 7 or Part 8, which give rise to the costs order. Bringing Part 8 costs-only proceedings is therefore not the commencement of, or part of, the detailed assessment proceedings. It is a necessary preliminary where no underlying proceedings exist.
3. CPR rule 47.11 concerns the costs covered by a default costs certificate. Those costs include the prescribed fixed solicitor’s charge and court fee for commencing detailed assessment. They do not include the costs of issuing the separate Part 8 costs-only claim. CPR rule 47.6 and paragraph 17.8 of the Costs Practice Direction support the distinction: the former treats detailed assessment as a separate process, while the latter provides that the amount of costs under a costs-only order is to be decided by detailed assessment.
4. The costs of the Part 8 proceedings therefore fell within the court’s broad discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. There was no unfairness in exercising that discretion in favour of the claimants, who had used the prescribed mechanism after the defendants repeatedly failed to respond.
5. The decision in Crosbie v Munroe [2003] EWCA Civ 350; [2003] 1 WLR 2033 was not inconsistent. It concerned whether an offer under CPR 47.19 included the costs of Part 8 proceedings. The court had held that the relevant costs were those of the substantive claim up to its disposal. It had not decided that Part 8 costs formed part of the detailed assessment or default certificate regime.
6. A claimant using costs-only proceedings should be neither worse nor better off than one using the detailed assessment and default procedure. Costs properly covered by the latter regime must not be claimed again. Any excess costs not agreed by the parties should be resolved by summary assessment. The absence of a fixed-costs regime for costs-only proceedings might merit consideration by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 November 2013, dismissed both second appeals and upheld the orders awarding the claimants the costs of the Part 8 costs-only proceedings: [2013] EWCA Civ 1805.
• Chichester County Court: His Honour Judge Coltart dismissed the defendants’ appeals against the orders of Deputy District Judge Starke on 25 February 2013.
• Deputy District Judge: Ordered the defendants to pay the claimants’ costs of the Part 8 proceedings and summarily assessed those costs.