I have arrived home after a very pleasant fortnight in Cornwall. Embedded in the lush green landscape north of Falmouth, I have spent happy days walking the old Minerals Tramways, exploring the Roseland Peninsula and sampling the local food.
When I go to Cornwall and enjoy several weeks in the sun, I always think of retiring there or at the least moving my centre of operations to the county and working remotely: but on the journey home, I realise that it is a long, long way down.
To make it work, one would have to be at the stage where contentment can be found on the edge of Britain. There are still many adventures to be had, before that time arrives.
My return home has co-incided with the handing down of judgment in a fixed costs case that I argued last month in Manchester. A copy of the judgment can be found here: K04MA298 Asmat Bi v. Tesco Underwriting Limited Judgment.
As the judgment notes:
On 1 October 2023 (“the Commencement Date”), the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023 [2023] No 572 (“the Amendment Rules”) came into force. This case concerns the effect of the transitional provisions of the Amendment Rules upon the costs of a claim settled under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules prior to the Commencement Date.
The case concerns the proper construction to be given to the transitional provisions concerning the implementation of the fixed costs regime: and in particular will be of interest to parties who settled non-personal injury cases before the 1st October 2023, without the issue of proceedings and may now find themselves caught in the net of fixed costs.
The judgment is not going to be appealed.
I am grateful to Simon Fisher at DWF Costs, who instructed me on the case and for all his hard work and meticulous preparation.
Well done on securing a laughably wrong decision. If it was right – which it so obviously isn’t – (1) the legislation in question would offend article 1 of the 1st protocol; (2) the claimant could sue the defendant for breach of contract. For, at the point of settlement, the defendant agreed to pay standard basis costs. A subsequent rule change can’t alter that contractual obligation.