Thread: Litigant In Person Rate

Litigant in person costs and expenses act 1975.

This may help you too:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1701510.html

Go to practice directives 43-48
click the following link

PRACTICE DIRECTION ABOUT COSTS - Ministry of Justice

Part 52.4 quotes the amount allowed


enamae

There are several other things to remember:-

1. The two thirds relates to money not time - so if a Solicitor takes a hour and charges £150 an LIP can charge up to £100 - that is alround 11 hours work although you would have to justify the time spent
2. An LIP can charge for everything they do - including things that a Solicitor cannot charge for (such as research).
3. You can also charge for things such as loss of earnings - for example if you lose a days wages because of a hearing.
4. In terms of disbursements again you can charge for a wider range than a Solicitor can - things like postage, copying etc

Have a look at the Court of Appeal decision in

Wulfsohn v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250

You should claim for absolutely everything, including, travel, car parking, bus fares, research, preparation, reading documents, drafting, letters, telephone calls, speaking to the other side outside of court, waiting at court, hearings, thinking about your case etc

Wulfsohn is the authority.

The hourly rate is £9.25 if you were only allowed to charge what a reasonably competent Solr would charge then there would be no need for the two thirds rule...

In Wulfsohn the Court of Appeal took the view that a Solicitor would have charged £15000 they therefore capped the costs at 10K.

If it was on the basis of how much work a Solcitor might do -CA the hourly rate woud be around £200 per hour - that is only 75 hours on that analysis the CA would have awarded 75 x 9.25 - £693.75...

Instead they allowed most of Mr W's claim of 1200 hours research - as a general rule a Solicitor cannot claim for research unless there are exceptional reasons. Even in an exceptional case no court has ever allowed 1200 hours for a case of this nature (in fact I don't think that a court has ever allowed 1200 hours research)

It is clear from Wulfsohn that the scope of LIP costs is much wider than Solr costs.

The court also allowed postage and copying - in Solicitors costs postage is not recoverable (it is viewed as an office overhead) and photocopying is only recoverable IF there are substantial amounts

The only Greville v Sprake cases I can find are Court of Appeal cases that seem to be about misfeasance in public office

Can you give me a case reference and I'll look it up

I've looked at the book you've referred me to - I think it is wrong - I've got the All England Official Transcript of the Judgment in Greville v Sprake [2001] EWCA Civ 234 - it has nothing to do with costs.

The case is about misfeasance in public office - I can't see anything that mentions LIP costs

"The claimant and his wife occupied a grade-two listed cottage, which had been leased to the claimant's sister-in-law. The land on which the cottage stood was owned and farmed by the landlord in partnership with their son-in-law, the defendant. The relationship between the owners and occupiers of the cottage deteriorated when the cottage was in need of repairs for which listed building consent was required. The claimant alleged that the defendant, who was a member of the local parish council, had made false misrepresentations during an off-the-record conversation at a parish council meeting at which the consent was being discussed (as was accepted practice where the member had an interest in a matter on the agenda), which resulted in the parish council making its views known to the relevant borough council that it was against the application being granted. The claimant commenced proceedings against the defendant, inter alia, for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The judge dismissed the claimant's claims, inter alia, on the grounds that although the representations made by the defendant had been false, the claimant had failed to demonstrate malice which was an essential ingredient of the tort of misfeasance in public office. The claimant appealed, submitting that the judge had been wrong in law in finding that it was a sufficient defence that the public officer had been acting in good faith, and that he only had to prove reckless indifference on the part of the defendant.

The appeals would be dismissed.

The judge had not fallen into error in dismissing the claims. The judge, having heard the evidence, had been entitled to reach the conclusion that the claimant had failed to show malice on the part of the defendant and there was no basis on which the court could interfere."

Copied from All England case reporter - [2001] All ER (D) 182 (Feb)

Thats' OK - if I don't notice when you post it just PM me

You seem to be missing a lot of time What about preparation for hearing, drafting claim form, drafting aq, was there any disclosure - have you received any documents from the other side - what about time spent considering them - any letters or elephone calls etc...

Hang on a second - is this a small claim - I've only just realised with you quoting PD 27 which relates to the SCT. We've been talking about fast and multi track cases not the SCT

The rules are totally different in SCT cases.

CPR 27.14 (2)" The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;


(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

(c) any court fees paid by that other party;

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for an expert’s fees; and

(g) such further costs "


How much is the claim for?

How have you got the claim to only £4625.73

The last unlawful eviction I did (in around 2002) was a £7500 claim then

Have you seen

Illegal Eviction | Nearly Legal

It was intially £8,757.80 but that depended on it being an AST so I offered her an opportunity to avoid court by paying £4,625.73, which was calculated on the basis that it was a common law tenancy (although I didn't tell her that at the time). This also put it under the £5k limit for small claims although CPR 26.7(4) suggests it should have gone on the fast track anyway.

I wasn't aware of the case mentioned on the nearly legal site but I've read a good many others. A barrister colleague of my wife leant me a book containing hundreds of examples of civil damages being awarded at the appeal court. None were very similar to my case and a lot involved a frightening level of violence and intimidation, none of which I suffered.

The calculation is this

Costs following eviction

Hotel bills 30 nights @ £80.00 = £2,400.00
Meals 30 @ £15.00 = £450.00
Internet access 30 days @ £15.00 = £450.00

Total costs after eviction (A) £3,300.00

Costs had I not been evicted

Rent 1 month @ £550.00 = £550.00
Food 1 month @ £45.00 = £45.00

Total costs if not evicted (B) £595.00

Additional costs incurred = A - B = £2,705.00 (C)

Other amounts claimed

General damages £1,500.00 (D)
Incorrect deductions to rent £60.73 (E)

Total Damages = C + D + E = £4,265.73