Court strikes out non-compliant points of dispute in costs assessment

Introduction

The High Court has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Niki Christodoulides vs CP Christou LLP, striking out the claimant's Points of Dispute (PoDs) in a detailed costs assessment. The judgment, handed down by Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC, highlights the importance of compliance with procedural rules in costs proceedings.

Background

The case arose from a professional negligence claim brought by Niki Christodoulides against her former solicitors, CP Christou LLP, and former counsel. The claim was struck out by Knowles J in June 2023 on multiple grounds, including non-compliance with procedural rules. The claimant's subsequent attempt to appeal was dismissed by Stuart-Smith LJ, who found no merit in the grounds raised.

Points of Dispute

In the costs assessment proceedings, the claimant, acting in person, submitted PoDs that were found to be non-compliant with Practice Direction 47.8.2. The PoDs were described as prolix, unfocused, and failing to identify specific items in dispute or the grounds for challenging them. Despite being 32 pages long, they did not cite a single item number from the bill.

Legal Analysis

Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC applied the principles established in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178, which requires PoDs to be short, to the point, and clearly identify the nature and grounds of dispute. The judge found that the claimant's PoDs were virtually incomprehensible and could not support a fair and proportionate assessment of costs.

Conduct Allegations

The claimant also raised allegations of misconduct against CP Christou LLP, including alleged alteration of trial transcripts and breach of privilege. However, these allegations were dismissed as they had already been addressed in the substantive litigation or were irrelevant to the costs assessment. The judge emphasised that CPR 44.11, which allows for costs reductions due to misconduct, was not applicable in this context.

Conclusion

The court struck out the non-compliant PoDs, with the exception of a few points that were sufficiently clear. The judgment underscores the necessity for litigants, even those acting in person, to adhere to procedural rules and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Other Matters

The judgment also criticised the unrealistic time estimate provided by CP Christou LLP for the costs assessment hearing, highlighting the importance of accurate time estimates to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Learn More

For more information on procedural compliance in costs assessments, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.