National firm Slater and Gordon continues to fight costs claims from hundreds of former clients - but there are mounting issues for costs chasers to overcome.

A ruling on procedural issues in Richardson & Ors v Slater and Gordon was published this week following a half-day hearing in the Senior Courts Costs Office, revealing the scale of the ongoing litigation.

Costs Judge Rowley explained at the outset that 224 individuals have brought proceedings against the firm for assessment of costs deducted from personal injury damages. Proceedings in a further 351 similar claims have not as yet been issued and an extension of time has been agreed.

These cases are brought by claimants represented by Leeds firm JG Solicitors and were paused pending the Court of Appeal decision in Cam Legal Services v Belsner. They are also similar in nature to other claims against Slater and Gordon in Edwards, where High Court judge Mr Justice Ritchie ruled last year that the firm must respond to question from former clients about details relating to alleged ‘secret’ commissions. The proceedings in Edwards were brought by claimants who had all instructed Clear Legal trading as checkmylegalfees.com and were referred to during the hearing in Richardson.

The problem facing all costs recovery claims is that in Belsner the Court of Appeal made clear that the courts are not the best outlet for assessing disputes over small bills.

With discontinuing the claims not an option due to costs implications, firms running them may now want to focus in on the issue of commissions allegedly paid to third parties.

Rowley said in his ruling that if claimants wanted to get onto the commission issue, they could ‘plainly’ start proceedings in the Chancery Division now. But the judge also pointed out that there is nothing in the claims as they currently stand to transfer to the Chancery Division other than an order for detailed assessment of profit costs and success fees.

Rowley said there was a ‘difficulty’ with the claimants’ approach in that there was no description of the commission issue points other than the claimants’ skeleton argument that they were ‘substantial and potentially wide ranging’.

The judge ordered that Slater and Gordon should serve cash accounts, whether or not separate breakdowns are to be provided. But he stressed that the purpose of the cash account at this stage was ‘no more than to provide figures for the claimants to contemplate the drafting of any positive case they want to bring either here or anywhere else’.

 

This article is now closed for comment.