Search Results

Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 - here the court held an offer of zero on one head of law was a valid offer in the MOJ Portal. Key Point An offer of zero is a valid offer in the Portal Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 The Defendant made an offer of zero for one head of loss in the Portal. The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal, claiming that the Defendant had breached the Portal rules. When it came to costs the Claimant argued that the requirement to propose an amount for every head of damage (now para 7.41 RTA Protocol, 7.35 EL/PL Protocol) required the Defendant to propose a figure other than zero. They claimed that by offering zero, the Defendant was in breach of that requirement which justified their departure from the Portal. However, the court found that an offer of zero was a perfectly valid offer. To find otherwise would be to find that a Defendant would have to offer at least 1p for any head of loss claimed, however ludicrous it might be. That could not be right. Whilst an offer of zero might be perfectly valid as an offer on one head of loss, it is unclear whether the situation would be the same if every head of loss had an offer of zero made. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 NB now overturned by Chimel v Chibwana Key Point Portal admissions were not binding outside that claim SINCE OVERTURNED Malak v Nasim DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 Here the issue was whether the claimant was bound by an admission which his insurers had made in the Portal on an entirely separate claim. The court found they were bound only within those same proceedings, not otherwise, rejecting the finding of Ullah v Jon . Please note that after this case was decided, the issue of whether Ullah v Jon or Malak v Nasim was correct was determined in the appeal of Chimel v Chibwana & Williams . The appellate court decided that Malak was wrongly decided. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Home Page for Sarah Robson - Costs Barrister - The Original Black Belt Barrister - Specialist in Fixed Costs. Ranked as a Leading Junior for Costs in the Legal 500. Sarah Robson Black Belt Barrister (4th Dan) 2002 Call You can still play Mazur's Run & Gun until the end of January 2026 - click here Legal 500 Sarah Robson has been ranked in the 2026 Legal 500 as a Leading Junior for Costs . Leading juniors are those with significant experience of key cases, strong market recognition from both peers and clients, and are seen as future candidates for silk. "Sarah is clearly a leading expert in the world of fixed costs disputes. She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of costs. Incredibly thorough, strategic, and always well-prepared. A fearless and tenacious barrister." Search the site here: Black Belt Barrister Sarah Robson is the original "Black Belt Barrister." By day she is a Fixed Costs specialist. By night, she can be found at the local Dojang, practising her Dark Arts, aka Taekwondo. Sarah attends Detailed Assessments, Oral Reviews, Preliminary Costs Hearings, CCMCs, Appeals, Fast and Multi-Track matters. She is THE go-to barrister for anything to do with Fixed costs. As well as being an excellent advocate in court, she is also happy to advise, particularly on technical points and procedural tactics. Sarah represents both Claimants and Defendants - she feels working for both sides gives her a better understanding of how the other side are likely to run a case. Sarah Robson East Midlands based Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is part of Alpha Court Chambers based in Warwickshire, home of Warwick Castle. Where? Sarah Robson appears in the SCCO, as well as High Courts and County Courts across much of Central England and Wales. She covers from Leeds to London, Cardiff to Norwich - Nationwide for remote hearings - or on request for in person. Usual Operating Area Fixed Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is a specialist costs barrister with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning Fixed Costs. Speaking Engagements Sarah speaks around the country and on video on fixed costs. Sarah is a popular and engaging speaker. She is not phased by addressing large audiences. She can also be persuaded to provide a Taekwondo demonstration, and has been surprised by the eagerness of the judiciary to have a go too! Sarah speaks to both Claimant and Defendant audiences, and to professional and lay clients. Please email to find out about her speaking availability. Service Sarah Robson does not have a clerk - she does not need one. Once clients have seen how Sarah works and how good she is they keep coming back! Solicitors can talk directly to Sarah when they book a case and often benefit from discussing the case with her at that point. There is usually time then to take steps to strengthen your case, whereas where a clerk has taken the booking it is often too late by the time counsel receive papers for a hearing. It is not unusual for cases to settle once the other side hear that Sarah Robson is the barrister on your side. Reputation Sarah is an experienced advocate with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning fixed costs. Awards and Scholarships Sarah was awarded the London University Prize for Distinguished Exam Performance in her LLB (Hons) (1999) Sarah received a major award from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple for her Bar School year (2001) Sarah received a major award from her Bar School, the University of the West of England (2001) Original Black Belt Barrister Sarah is the original Black Belt Barrister. She is a current practicing 4th degree black belt in Tae kwon do, a fully qualified Tae kwon do instructor and referee. She is registered with the British Taekwondo Council. She regularly judges Tae kwon do competitions at both local and national level. Bar Standards Board Sarah Robson is a barrister regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). She is governed by the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct. The Barristers' Register shows (1) who has a current practising certificate, and (2) whether a barrister has any disciplinary findings, which are published on the Barristers’ Register in accordance with the BSB’s policy. Contractual Terms All work is carried out under COMBAR's standard terms and conditions, payment option A. These can be found her e . These terms will apply to all instructions and briefs accepted from solicitors and other authorised persons unless other terms have been agreed in writing. Instruction Sarah aims to make the process of instructing her straight-forward. She understand the need to be flexible and to work together as a team to provide practical solutions. If you would like to instruct her please call or email direct. Please do not supply details about the case before checking if she is conflicted. Work in England and Wales Sarah accepts instructions from: Solicitors, other authorised litigators, employed barristers and legal advice centres in England & Wales European lawyers registered with the Law Society and qualified lawyers from other jurisdictions Licensed professionals in the UK under the Licensed Access scheme Please note Sarah is not Direct Access Qualified . Members of the public should seek a solicitor. Fees/Timescales Sarah is happy to discuss fees, which are usually based on her hourly/daily rate, and agree a fixed fee, which will vary depending on the work required. These fees are likely to be higher if your case is particularly complex or urgent. A fixed fee means she will charge you a set amount of money for the work required. She will need to agree a fee in advance for each piece of work going forward. She is willing to provide quotations or estimates of fees and a timetable for completing work. Fee quotations or estimates will usually be based on hourly/daily rates. She can also in some circumstances offer a fixed or capped fee for drafting or a hearing. For trials will be provide an estimate of a brief fee and where appropriate, a refresher rate. Fees may be structured in a way to suit the client, for instance charging agreed fees for preparation of a skeleton argument, for general preparation, and for attendance at court. Timescales Timescales for completion of work can depend on a number of factors, examples being: availability of Counsel and or client; complexity of the matter; and number of papers involved; and will obviously be affected by the volume of other work being undertaken. For instance if counsel is engaged in a two-week trial it may not be possible to complete work within the usual timescale. As a guide, she would normally expect to complete paperwork within three weeks unless external factors (which will be explained at the outset) prevent this. As regards court work, much depends on the timetables provided by the courts, over which she has no control, and the need to comply with court prescribed timetables. Work required to comply with these timetables has to take priority over other work. Complaints A copy of Chambers' Complaints policy can be found by clicking the above link . If you are unhappy with the response to your complaint, or if you receive no final response within eight weeks and you fall within their jurisdiction you may take up your complaint with the Legal Ombudsman, the independent complaints body for complaints about lawyers. The Ombudsman is not able to consider your complaint until it has first been investigated by Chambers. Please note that You must complain to the Legal Ombudsman either within six years of your barrister’s actions/failure to act, or no later than three years after you should reasonably have known there were grounds to complain. You must also complain to the Legal Ombudsman within six months of receiving your barrister’s final response to your complaint.” You can write to them at: Legal Ombudsman PO Box 6806, Wolverhampton WV1 9WJ Telephone number: 0300 555 0333 Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk More information about the Legal Ombudsman is available on their website : http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/ The Ombudsman’s website of decisions during the last 12 months, showing against whom the Ombudsman has made any ruling, or any decision requiring a remedy, is available at Ombudsman decision data | Legal Ombudsman Not afraid of difficult cases Why not call and ask to speak to Sarah to find out what she can do for you? That case you hate in the bottom of your cupboard, we know it's there. Sarah can help. Contact Sarah Robson Sarah spoke at the ACL Costs Conference in Manchester on "Black Belt Court Craft". She ended the entertaining talk with a board break. Kevin Latham was not injured in the making of this talk.

Key Point Key Point The bar for exceptional circumstances is a high one and The basket of cases against which one assesses exceptionality is all those cases which start in the Portal and then leave Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB) The lower court had erred in finding that the bar was low. It was in fact a very high bar. At [43] the court held: "As the House of Lords said in R v Soneji, an expression such as “exceptional circumstances” must take its colour from the setting in which it appears. The setting in which it appears informs the Court whether a strict approach to exceptional is or is not warranted. " The second question was whether the Master was right in defining the ‘basket’ of cases compared with which a case needs to have “exceptional circumstances”. At [47] the court held "It is clear that the basket of cases against which a case must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” is the type of cases that have exited the Portal and are subject to the Part IIIA regime." The case was remitted back to Master Gordon-Saker to be assessed again. However, no judgment appears anywhere I can find, so it does seem likely the case then settled. If anyone knows any differently, please let me know. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Moesaid v Calder Where a subsequent report took the claim out of the definition of soft tissue injury claim, it did not matter WHEN or in WHICH ORDER the reports were disclosed, the special rules on soft tissue injuries did not apply. Key Point The special rules on Soft Tissue Injury Claims do not apply once a subsequent report takes the claim out of being a soft tissue injury claim, irrespective of when the reports were disclosed Moesaid v Calder DDJ Kube, Manchester CC, 27th August 2021 The Claimant disclosed a GP report, then started Stage 2 of the MOJ Portal and disclosed both reports with the Stage 2 pack. Damages were settled without a hearing. D argued that para 7.8A of the RTA Portal Protocol required the Claimant to disclose the first report before obtaining the second report. C argued that the rules only required that the first report be disclosed before the second report is disclosed. In any event, C argued that the claim was not a soft tissue injury claim so the special rules in RTA Protocol cases did not apply to this claim. D argued that the case only ceased to be a soft tissue injury claim on the receipt of the second report, and thus if the second report was inadmissible because it had not been disclosed in accordance with the rules then the claim remained a soft tissue injury claim. The court found that this was a soft tissue injury claim and therefore the special rules in 7.8A did not apply to this claim. It therefore did not need to go on and decide if the second report had been disclosed in accordance with the rules. Instructed by Steven Sherlock, Bespoke Costs Ltd Click here for judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016 - Parties cannot renege on individual heads of loss agreed at Stage 2 except in exceptional circumstances, so long as the claim remains in the portal. Thus Agreements on individual heads of loss are binding at Stage 2. Also the court held (Obiter) that Portal settlements on complete claims are binding to the World. Key Points Agreements on individual heads of loss are binding at Stage 2 and (Obiter) Portal settlements on complete claims are binding to the World Maddocks v Lyne HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd Jan 2016 Parties agreed some individual heads of loss during Stage 2, but at the Stage 3 hearing the Claimant re-opened them, which the judge allowed. The Defendant appealed, arguing that agreements reached in the Portal on individual heads of were binding. The Defendant argued how the a Stage 3 hearing was defined as a hearing to determine items which remained in dispute. The Claimant argued that the wording of the rules only referred to 'offer' in the singular. The Defendant relied on Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh which said they are, and the Claimant relied on Bushell v Parry which said they were not. Permission to appeal, in some delicious irony, was given to the Defendants by HHJ Gregory, who had decided the Bushell case. In a long and reserved judgment, HHJ Wood QC held that where a claim remained in the Portal, as here, those items agreed at Stage 2 would be binding on both parties except in very exceptional cases. The judge went on to find, obiter, that if the matter left the Portal, then individual heads of loss were not binding, although the judgment notes that no argument was heard on this point. The court also went on to find, again obiter, that if all heads of loss were agreed in the Portal then it was binding on the world. Whilst confirming the original position as found in Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh , this decision also resolved the dispute between the inconsistent decisions of Ullah v Jon and Malak v Nasim , on whether admissions in the Portal are binding outside of that Portal claim where there is no judgment, by confirming that where settlement is reached on all heads of loss that the agreement is binding on the world, it does not require a judgment to be binding. That point was then confirmed, ratio, 10 months later in the appeal decision of Chimel v Chibwana & Williams . Click here for a copy of the judgment Click here for a PDF copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Mazur Run & Gun is the answer to the Mazur problem. Get away from it all! Run - and very fast! Armed only with deadly mince pies, you'll have to move fast to dodge the bullets sent at the unqualified, however supervised you may be. If you're not careful, you could end up floating away, and let's face it, no-one wants that! Mazur, like you've never seen it before! Christmas Game Mazur has had us all on the run, but can you outrun them? Armed only with deadly mince pies, your job is to chase the baddies away before they get to you, or even blow you away! Ahem. You all thought you could get a game about Mazur, but as it turns out, the Association of Gaming Designers* and the Board of Satire and Christmas Spirit*, in terms reminiscent of the CA in Denton speaking of Mitchell, have said you all mis-understood them. They have never approved you doing this. You cannot play a Mazur game, even when supervised. You can, however, play a game called 'Track Attack'. Which, as LJ Waller once famously said, may be a distinction without a difference... For years you've been conducting litigation under supervision. But no more, it seems everyone is out to get you. You can no longer do this. However, all is not lost! You might be able to outrun and outgun the baddies! Run away as fast as you can, and use your deadly mince pie gun to shoot others out of the way. But watch out, the occasional train will randomly fly off the tracks - so be quick! Track Attack is a perfectly suitable fun Christmas game for all litigators, qualified or not. Just run around and shoot stuff. Nothing to do with Mazur. Play here How to Play Controls A - Left D - Right W - Up S - Down Or use the arrow buttons: < - Left > - Right /\ - Up v - Down Space bar - shoot your deadly mince pie! Search the site here: Mazur Run & Gun does not work on mobile phones. It is designed to give my clients a few minutes reprieve when working hard at their desks. So next time you're at your PC or Laptop, come back and play the Mazur game. Meanwhile, just so you don't miss out entirely, have a go at this Christmas Match game. Nothing to do with Mazur! :) When you're done, why not browse through the fixed costs cases on here - see the Index or use the search function to see if there's a case or two you can use. I am particularly keen to get any judgments on the new Oct 23+ expanded fixed costs, so if you get any - reported or not - please do send them to me! Thank you. * entirely fictional and any similarity to any real organisations is entirely coincidental

Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401 - the Court of Appeal held that it was irrational for a judge to order a claim out of the portal. They also confirmed that individual heads of loss can be agreed in the Portal. Key Point Unreasonable to remove a claim from the Portal for a small Credit Hire dispute Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401 This claim went through the MOJ Portal where some heads of loss were agreed in Stage 2, but not all. Only credit hire remained when the matter went to Stage 3. Despite the sum in dispute being less than £500, and the dispute over that sum being very narrow, the judge of his own volition ordered the claim out of the Portal with a long list of disproportionate directions which would have cost vastly more than was reasonable for the sum in dispute and nature of the dispute between the parties. The Claimant appealed and it was upheld at first tier appeal. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, noting that the decision to remove the case from the Portal was irrational in that case. Clearly, it was unnecessary and unreasonable in this case to remove the matter from the Portal, especially where neither party wanted this, and especially with the extensive directions given which were completely disproportionate. This is not to say it would be unreasonable and irrational in all circumstances, but it would appear that this is not expected to be routine. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Petit v MIB & 5 Ors - DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15.02.17 - A claim which should never have been brought in the MOJ Portal did not attract SIIIA fixed costs Key Point A claim which should never have been brought in the MOJ Portal did not attract SIIIA fixed costs Petit v MIB & 5 Ors DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15.02.17 This claim started in the MOJ RTA Portal Protocol, but should not have done. The accident occurred on 18 Oct 2011 when the Portal upper limit was £10,000. The Portal upper limit was changed to £25,000 for all accidents which happened after 31 July 2013, and the new Protocol applied to all claims where the CNF was submitted after that date too. In this case the CNF was submitted on 19 Sept 2014. Thus the claim was subject to the new Protocol, but the old upper limit, a point which eluded the claimant solicitors at the time. The MIB objected to the claim being brought in the MOJ Portal protocol because of its value stated on the CNF to be between £10,000 - £25,000. The claim was later removed from the Portal for that very reason and Part 7 proceedings were brought. The Defendant sought to limit the Claimant's costs to fixed costs under SIIIA of CPR 45. However the court disagreed, finding that as the claim had not 'properly' started in the MOJ Portal Protocol, SIIIA costs did not follow. Please note it has not yet been possible to obtain a copy of the approved judgment, however the link below is to the draft transcript agreed by both counsel in the case. Click here for a copy of the unapproved judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17.12.15 Key Point Protocol offers are open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued but only if they have proceeded into Stage 3 Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17th Dec 2015 Protocol offers are open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued but only if they have proceeded into Stage 3. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Case law on the new expanded fixed costs regime from October 2023. Including Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd. Oct 23 New Fixed Costs Cases Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd When settled pre-Oct 23 pre proceedings, which costs apply Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index

McKendry v British Airways Plc DJ Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge) Liverpool CC 16th May 2018. This case makes it clear that claims brought under the Montreal Convention are strict liability claims. Liability arises not from any duty of care but from international agreement. Portal claims require duty and breach. It is perhaps slightly surprising that a whole raft of claims is excluded from the Portal Protocols without being specified. Key Point The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims McKendry v British Airways Plc DJ Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge) Liverpool County Court, 16th May 2018 Here the Claimant sent a Letter Before Action, claiming under the Montreal Convention. The Defendant replied admitting liability, but requested that the matter proceeded under the Portal Protocol. The Claimant declined, noting that they were not claiming a breach of duty, so the Portal did not apply. Parties later settled damages without the need for proceedings, but costs could not be agreed. Part 8 costs only proceedings were commenced with the central dispute concerning whether fixed costs applied or not. Article 29 of the Montreal Convention gives exclusivity for the convention to apply, and so there can be no question of common law torts applying either instead or as well. Liability under Article 17 arises not from any 'notional' breach of duty, but rather by international agreement. The convention is a stand-alone code, much like the Portal itself. The new Package Travel Protocol specifically excludes both the Athens Convention and the Montreal Convention from its scope, which supports the view that claims under the Montreal Convention should not be brought in the Portal. This case, together with the similar case of Mead v British Airways , makes it clear that claims brought under the Montreal Convention are strict liability claims. Liability arises not from any duty of care but is a strict liability arising from international agreement. Claims brought in the Portal require a duty and breach. Admitting liability in the Portal also admits that the defendant has no accrued defence under the Limitation Act 1980, and the Limitation Act does not apply to Montreal Convention claims. It is perhaps slightly surprising that a whole raft of claims is excluded from the Portal Protocols without being specified. However, on a quick drilling down into the nature of Montreal Convention claims and the exclusivity provided therein, it is clear this approach must be right. Whilst neither case is binding, there is a lot of sense to these decisions. They are supported by the fact the new Package Travel Protocol specifically excludes such claims. There would also be inherent difficulties in international travel cases over whether the accident occurred within England & Wales. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index