Campbell v Campbell

A litigant in person may be subject to costs management where substantial recoverable costs are likely, even though the default rules exempt litigants in person from filing budgets. The court may require a budget and make a costs management order, adapting the procedural requirements as necessary. Under CPR 46.5, a litigant in person may recover reasonable payments for lawful legal services relating to the conduct of proceedings, while retaining responsibility for conducting the litigation. Assistance from solicitors and counsel may therefore be recoverable. The court left open whether the two-thirds cap applies to such payments.

The claimant, conducting complex proceedings as a litigant in person after ending his solicitors’ retainer, continued to receive assistance from counsel and proposed to obtain assistance from an English-qualified solicitor and junior counsel. The claim was already subject to costs-management directions, but the claimant’s change in status raised questions about costs management and recovery of legal expenses.

The court considered the interaction between CPR 3.12 to 3.18, CPR 46.5, Practice Direction 3E and applicable regulatory requirements. The central issues were whether costs management could apply to a litigant in person and whether payments for legal assistance could be recovered.

1. Costs management. The court had jurisdiction to manage a litigant in person’s costs. CPR 3.12(2) states the general purpose of costs management, and CPR 3.15(2) empowers the court to manage costs incurred by any party. The exemption in CPR 3.13 concerns the default filing requirement. It does not prevent the court from ordering a litigant in person to file a budget or from making a costs-management order.
2. Practice Direction 3E could be adapted where necessary, including the budget format and statement of truth.
3. Legal assistance. CPR 46.5(3)(b) permits recovery of payments reasonably made for lawful legal services relating to the conduct of proceedings. It does not permit the litigant in person to delegate conduct of the litigation.
4. Reasonable fees for assistance from an English-qualified solicitor and junior counsel could be recoverable, provided the services were lawfully provided and the applicable regulatory requirements were satisfied.
5. The requested declarations were granted. The court left open whether the cap in CPR 46.5(2) applies to payments for legal services.

First-instance decision. The judgment refers to an earlier decision in Campbell v Campbell [2016] EWHC 1828 (Ch) concerning the recoverability of fees charged by a Jersey lawyer.