Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



11-2-2016 2:11 pm  #1


Court costs in the event of a win.

Can anybody who has won their case and received court costs offer any info as to what the court allows for costs?

I believe this is covered in Civil Courts Practice notes but I have not studied it yet.

I know that a L.I.P. (ie not represented) is not allowed to charge his time at the same rate as a lawyer etc. I think the figure was set at £15 per hour max. On top of that are phone calls and correspondence and maybe travel and refreshments?

Any contributions gratefully received as we need to start adding this into prep for any hearings.


We now have a working model of an online fillable court costs sheet.

Enter your own numerical values in cols I and J . Subtotals and total will appear automatically.

Grateful thanks to Shaky and N2d Garry who have spent a good few hours on this.


http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=1912
 

Last edited by eezyrider (03-3-2016 8:59 pm)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

11-2-2016 6:24 pm  #2


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

 

11-2-2016 6:43 pm  #3


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

davedog wrote:

Here's a decent article...http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/benchmarks/costs-and-litigants-in-person/5038419.fullarticle

Confirms £18 per hour as max

 

Thanks Dave. By coincidence I have just spent the last couple of hours going through that very piece. Excellent!
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

11-2-2016 6:57 pm  #4


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

As you say Dave the hourly rate you can claim is a max of £18 per hour for time spent on research and prepping the case. However there is a cap of 2/3rds of the amount a solicitor would charge.

For saying that there is no cap on the cost of disbursements which is all other out of pocket expenses and could exceed those of a qualified legal because much of his disbursements are included in his hourly rate.

It should be noted according to the article that Dave provided the link to above, that an LiP can either claim his actual financial losses eg income if they can be proved or the hourly rate of £18.

''So, in conclusion, when making an award in favour of an LiP, the court needs to:


  • a)    identify a rate, being either the actual loss, or the prescribed rate of £18
  • b)    assess the time reasonably/necessarily/proportionately spent (perhaps with an element of understanding for additional time on research, etc);
  • c)    Assess the figure a hypothetical legal adviser of an appropriate grade  would have charged for the same work;
  • d)    Allow either the LiP’s assessed claim in full, or, if necessary, discount the figure to two-thirds of the amount that would have been charged by the legal representative; and
  • e)    Assess the disbursements.''


As of October it appears the figure has increased to £19 per hour

Last edited by eezyrider (12-2-2016 10:13 pm)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

12-2-2016 6:27 pm  #5


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

Excellent idea Eezy.
It might be appropriate to have a pro forma document containing hours spent preparing (like a time sheet), travelling expenses, disbursements and anything else that may be included.
It is common during litigation for the parties to refer to costs already incurred so this may be updated as claimants progress the matter.

JMK

 

12-2-2016 7:56 pm  #6


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

There does not seem to be any consistency in costs awards. Some people have been awarded several hundred pounds whereas others have got precisely nowt. In my case, costs were decided at a separate hearing before a supposedly "impartial" district judge (Rutherford) and proved to be a carefully prepared "ambush" on the part of the Home Office.  D.J. Rutherford told me that the cert 144 issued by the magistrates meant that I was entitled to no costs as all. However the Home Office was prepared, as a gesture of goodwill (HA HA HA!!!) to pay £99 and I was bluntly told to take it or leave it.

D.J. Rutherford justified his opinion by claiming to be bound by the decision (all 41 pages of it) of the Court of Appeal in Perinpanathan (see also this post). If DJ Rutherford had read this judgement he had clearly not understood it. The Court of Appeal is clear that when deciding on costs (and by implication Cert 144) the conduct of the authorities at all stages of the process and not just at the time of seizure should be properly scrutinised.

Magistrates should exercise particular care when considering whether the police have acted reasonably in a case where there is an application for costs against them under section 64. It would be wrong to invoke the wisdom of hindsight or to set too exacting a standard, but, particularly given the understandable resentment felt by a person in the position of the appellant if no order for costs is made, and the general standards of behaviour that can properly be expected from the police, it must be right to scrutinise their behaviour in relation to the seizure, the detention, and the confiscation proceedings, with some care when deciding whether they acted reasonably and properly. (for “police” read “Border Force” for “confiscation” read “condemnation”) .

 

Last edited by turbulentupstart (12-2-2016 8:06 pm)

 

12-2-2016 10:01 pm  #7


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

Johny_MK wrote:

Excellent idea Eezy.
It might be appropriate to have a pro forma document containing hours spent preparing (like a time sheet), travelling expenses, disbursements and anything else that may be included.
It is common during litigation for the parties to refer to costs already incurred so this may be updated as claimants progress the matter.

JMK

Yes  sounds a good idea anyway to keep track of costs. As I understand it costs should be presented to court in spreadsheet format. I'm still searching for examples of such formats.
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

12-2-2016 10:12 pm  #8


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

TU
As I see it there is a difference between asking for costs depending on whether or not a s144 cert has been granted.

Whilst I do not discount the possibility that costs could be awarded (Based on your research and experience), I am keen to look at how we can advise members to claim costs especially when a s144 has not been granted. In the interests of simplicity may be we should start another thread on the merits or otherwise of costs after a s144.

Your thoughts would be appreciated


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

13-2-2016 5:35 am  #9


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

eezyrider wrote:

TU
As I see it there is a difference between asking for costs depending on whether or not a s144 cert has been granted.

Whilst I do not discount the possibility that costs could be awarded (Based on your research and experience), I am keen to look at how we can advise members to claim costs especially when a s144 has not been granted. In the interests of simplicity may be we should start another thread on the merits or otherwise of costs after a s144.

Your thoughts would be appreciated

I would agree with this approach.  S144 appears to be pernicious and random. 

Where s144 has not been granted there is potential to develop an approach as with the SOT etc.

JMK


 

 

13-2-2016 8:21 pm  #10


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

The main thing to remember is to prepare a proper schedule of costs in advance of the hearing, and if successful present it to the magistrates at the end regardless of whether or not a cert 144 has been  issued.

The following (from http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Seizure-and-Forfeiture-Excise-Goods-%E2%80%93-Part-2) should prove useful:

Equally, if the Revenue and Customs/UKBA application is not successful, the defendant will be able to ask for his legal costs in defending the matter. Again, some caution should be exercised when advising on this aspect, as Revenue and Customs/UKBA would be entitled to object to such an order if, for example, the defendant had raised matters in the magistrates’ court for the first time in dealing with the application for forfeiture which he had not previously mentioned, either at the time of seizure or subsequently in correspondence. Even if the defendant is successful, it will not necessarily follow that he will obtain a costs award if the court finds that the UKBA have acted honestly, reasonably and properly, and in the public interest (following Perinpanathan v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and two others [2009] EWHC 762 (Admin)), confirmed by the Court of Appeal in, R (on the application of Amaravathari Perinpanathan) v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (2) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2010) [2010] EWCA Civ 40.

It is clear from the above that the magistrates should consider what steps you took to resolve matters in advance of the hearing. This is where the "kitchen sink" comes in. Unfortunately, the only person at BF who will receive the said "kitchen sink" is the review officer who will say he cannot consider the material as it is relevant only to condemnation proceedings!

Equally this should also apply to BF.   We all know that they often give you spurious reasons for seizure (or none at all) and then try to ambush you in court with something you had no chance to rebut in advance. The magistrates, were they to find in favour of BF, should nevertheless take a dim view of these tactics when it comes to awarding costs.

When preparing a court bundle, I think the best advice that can be given is to indicate clearly how you tried to resolve matters in advance (i.e produce any evidence that rebuts any reasons for seizure you may have been given) and also include a copy of the relevant passages from The Seizure and Forfeiture of Excise Goods  quoted above.

 

Last edited by turbulentupstart (13-2-2016 8:22 pm)

 

13-2-2016 10:06 pm  #11


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

turbulentupstart wrote:

The main thing to remember is to prepare a proper schedule of costs in advance of the hearing, and if successful present it to the magistrates at the end regardless of whether or not a cert 144 has been  issued.

The following (from http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Seizure-and-Forfeiture-Excise-Goods-%E2%80%93-Part-2) should prove useful:

Equally, if the Revenue and Customs/UKBA application is not successful, the defendant will be able to ask for his legal costs in defending the matter. Again, some caution should be exercised when advising on this aspect, as Revenue and Customs/UKBA would be entitled to object to such an order if, for example, the defendant had raised matters in the magistrates’ court for the first time in dealing with the application for forfeiture which he had not previously mentioned, either at the time of seizure or subsequently in correspondence. Even if the defendant is successful, it will not necessarily follow that he will obtain a costs award if the court finds that the UKBA have acted honestly, reasonably and properly, and in the public interest (following Perinpanathan v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and two others [2009] EWHC 762 (Admin)), confirmed by the Court of Appeal in, R (on the application of Amaravathari Perinpanathan) v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (2) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2010) [2010] EWCA Civ 40.

It is clear from the above that the magistrates should consider what steps you took to resolve matters in advance of the hearing. This is where the "kitchen sink" comes in. Unfortunately, the only person at BF who will receive the said "kitchen sink" is the review officer who will say he cannot consider the material as it is relevant only to condemnation proceedings!

Equally this should also apply to BF.   We all know that they often give you spurious reasons for seizure (or none at all) and then try to ambush you in court with something you had no chance to rebut in advance. The magistrates, were they to find in favour of BF, should nevertheless take a dim view of these tactics when it comes to awarding costs.

When preparing a court bundle, I think the best advice that can be given is to indicate clearly how you tried to resolve matters in advance (i.e produce any evidence that rebuts any reasons for seizure you may have been given) and also include a copy of the relevant passages from The Seizure and Forfeiture of Excise Goods  quoted above.

 

Useful post, we're on the same page with this one.
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

03-3-2016 9:14 pm  #12


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

I have edited post #1 to include our online fillable court costs sheet.

Just to reiterate we have had members winning in court recently who could probably have received costs if they'd had a bill with them.

I suggest you prepare a sheet and add it into the back of your bundle and the court bundle. There is no requirement to supply the other party with a copy if you are litigant in person.

As an LIP you are limited to a max of two thirds of what a solicitor would charge. Even though BF look for around £2500 in costs that includes other expenses including court fees so keep your costs reasonable if you want a result.

You can only claim back actual losses and reasonable time spent at £19 per hour. You cannot claim lost time from work unless you can prove it. I recommend therefore you add in a couple of hours @ £19 to attend court.

Have a play with the spreadsheet and report back any problems please.

Once again thanks to N2d Garry and Shaky

 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

04-3-2016 5:35 am  #13


Re: Court costs in the event of a win.

Just thought I'd better mention, as Eezy & me found out last night, this sheet sometimes takes a while to update, or let you input the figures. So please bare this in mind. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png


I am Homer of Borg, resistance is.............hmmmm doughnuts http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.