Thomas Lake v Hunt Kid Law Firm LLP [2011] EWHC 766 (QB)
Art 14 of Solicitors’(Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994 did not confer a discretionary power upon a costs judge who was undertaking a detailed assessment of a solicitor’s bill to reduce or disallow interest payable on an award of costs.
The Appellant appealed against the decision of a costs judge that he pay interest on an award of costs to the respondent firm. Appellant had been a client of the respondent and had been presented with a Bill of Costs that the appellant then applied to have detailed assessment of.
He argued that Art 14 should be read as conferring a discretion upon a judge to reduce or disallow interest which the solicitor had claimed upon the unpaid costs. He also argued that it was open for a judge to reduce or disallow interest by virtue of s.35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
The Court ruled that Art 14 did not confer a discretionary power and that s. 35A of the 1981 Act was to be read as conferring a power to award interest in appropriate circumstances rather than to reduce or disallow interest. In any event, based on the facts of the case there was no basis to reduce interest even if the court did have such a discretion.
Therefore, the respondent firm was entitled to interest at the rate and for the period specified in the order.
This entry was posted in Costs and tagged Art 14, CPR, interest, Legal costs, Order for Costs, Thomas Lake v Hunt Kid Law Firm LLP. Bookmark the permalink.