Russell Worth Personal Injury Blog:

Claimant cost success in interim (PAD) application subject to CPR 45.29H

Jul 26, 2017 | Blog, General Personal Injury News, General Russell Worth News, Personal Injury

Russell Worth Personal Injury Blog:

Claimant cost success in interim (PAD) application subject to CPR 45.29H

Skowron -v- Rollers Roller Disco Ltd, 8 June 2017, Truro County Court, unreported

The issue at hand in this hearing was the level of fixed costs awarded to the Claimant following an Order of the Court, without a hearing, for Pre-Action Disclosure.

The case was heard in front of DJ Middleton, Regional Costs Judge and co-author of Cook on Costs.

The Defendant representative had sought to limit the Claimant’s costs under CPR 45.29H(1) to £125+ VAT on the basis the application had not had a hearing and no advocacy had taken place.

We argued that the literal interpretation of CPR 45.29H(1) did not state that any advocacy had to have taken place to get the full fixed costs of £250.00 plus VAT in regards to making the interim application.

DJ Middleton found in favour of the Claimant stating:

9. I remind myself that 45.29H(1) does not say that there has to be advocacy; it simply defines the fee in terms of calculation by it being half of type A and type B costs. That in itself, the fact that it refers to half, suggests to me that it is simply a mechanism to work out a fee rather than specifying that there must be both type A and type B costs incurred. It is all very well to submit that the rule-makers did not intend something but the reality of course is that that is what the rule says. It does not, for example, say, “A sum equivalent to one half of the applicable type A and, if incurred, type B costs.” It simply defines that the fee is set by reference to a ready formula – namely half of both type A and type B costs.

10. This analysis leads me inexorably to the conclusion that CPR 45.269H is simply a fee-setting device and therefore the appropriate fee should be half of both type A and type B costs. That is £250. There is VAT on that of £50 and therefore the order should be varied to provide that the sum payable is £555, and I so order.

The arguments on the amount of fixed costs for interim application has been steadily increasing and we hope that this decision stems the flow from unscrupulous Defendant representatives.

A copy of the Judgment can be requested via

Ben Walters
Russell Worth Solicitors

Excellent. The service was efficient from start to finish and I would not hesitate to recommend Russell Worth Solicitors to anybody who is unfortunate enough to meet with a personal injury that is not their fault.
Hilary Ann

People Love Us - Click Here To See Our Reviews On TrustPilot!

Other Blog Sections