Detailed assessment

Detailed assessment

Introduction

Detailed assessment is a process by which the court determines the level of costs to be paid by one party to another. Generally, costs will be agreed between the parties and so the use of detailed assessment to determine the costs payable to the winning party is relatively rare. If you are involved in a detailed assessment, it is essential to understand the process, the rules (and where to find them), the involvement of the court, the time limitations and the terminology that applies as well as the different types of costs certificates available:

•
paying party—the party who has been ordered by the court to pay costs
•
receiving party—the party to be paid their costs

The receiving party has responsibility for starting the detailed assessment process, which must be commenced within three months after the event giving rise to the right arose, eg within three months after the date of judgment. Failure to commence detailed assessment in time can result in sanctions being applied. In order to commence detailed assessment, the receiving party needs to serve documents set out in CPR PD 47, para 5.2 on

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

CJC concludes comprehensive review of pre-action protocols with publication of final report (phase two)

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has concluded its extensive review of pre-action protocols (PAPs) with the publication of its phase two report. The first phase of the final report, published in August 2023, examined the role of PAPs in the civil justice system and explored the potential for digitalising pre-action processes. The second phase was published in November 2024. In the second (and final) phase report the CJC has set out its recommendations for the reform of various existing PAPs, including those for Personal Injury, Housing, Judicial Review, Debt, Construction and Engineering, Professional Negligence and Media and Communications. The report also recommends the creation of two new PAPs, one for dealing with child abuse and one for Multi-Track Claims in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (with a draft included at Appendix 1).

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a report on the final part of the Civil Justice Council's review of the personal injury and clinical negligence pre-action protocols and includes recommendations for reform such as a separate protocol for child abuse claims. We also include our usual roundup of news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

MoJ publishes annual report and accounts for 2023-2024

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released its annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023-2024 on 14 November 2024. This comprehensive document outlines the department's activities, performance against strategic objectives, governance structures and resource utilisation for the year ending 31 March 2024. Prepared in accordance with HM Treasury's Government Financial Reporting Manual, the report consolidates results from the core department, executive agencies and relevant arm's length bodies.

Misrepresentation, implied terms and settlement agreements (Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd centred on the interpretation and alleged breach of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in relation to a previous set of proceedings. In this judgment, which serves as a helpful reference for practitioners on several legal issues, the High Court considered whether misrepresentations contained in a party’s pleadings may be actionable, as well as the circumstances in which representations, either express or implied, made during the course of a mediation could form the basis of a claim in misrepresentation, in the absence of a finding of unambiguous impropriety. The court also considered the test for implication of terms into the settlement agreement, and the law applicable to the construction of express contractual terms, ultimately finding the defendant to be liable for breach of an express and/or implied term of the settlement agreement, and in misrepresentation for statements made during the course of the mediation which led to the conclusion thereof. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News