Item List Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, Aug 2024, claim no K04MA298 Read More This is a Title 02 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More This is a Title 01 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More

Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, Aug 2024, claim no K04MA298 Whilst only a first tier hearing, it is useful as a point of reference given the paucity of case law on the October 23 extention to fixed costs. Here the court was considering the incidence of costs in a case where a non-personal injury claim had settled by acceptance of a Part 36 offer without the need for proceedings, and notably before the commencement of the new fixed costs regime. Costs could not be agreed, and so the claimant brought Part 8 proceedings. HHJ Sephton found that the Amendment Rules (SI 572/2023) were procedural in nature, and therefore followed the general convention that they were retrospective in effect. He found the Claimant's entitlement to costs only crystallised after the costs had been assessed, allowed or agreed. Thus the case fell to be decided under the costs rules then rather than at the point of settlement, which was under the extended fixed costs. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index

To book counsel for a hearing or for drafting, please use this page. Contact / Book Counsel To enquire if counsel is available, please complete this form and we will get back to you shortly. Fee Earner's name* Name of Solicitor's Firm* Email Address* Do you require an Advice/Drafting?* Hearing Only Hearing and Advice/Drafting Advice/Drafting Only Name of Court (leave blank if drafting only) Date of Hearing Time and Estimated Length of Hearing Details of Instruction* SUBMIT Chambers' Telephone Number 0800 634 9650 From outside the UK: +44 (0)191 580 0237 Professional clients will be provided with Sarah's mobile number directly. Members of the General Public should note that Sarah Robson cannot advise them directly; she is not Direct Access qualified . They should see a solicitor. Email email@sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Linked In uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahrobsonbarrister Blue Sky https://bsky.app/profile/sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Mastodon @Portal_Queen@c.im (@Portal_Queen@c.im) Postal Address Please do not post papers to the chambers address. Professional clients will be provided with Sarah Robson's postal address directly. Document Exchange Please note that Sarah Robson is no longer on the document exchange as of November 2022 . X (Twitter) @Portal_Queen Sarah Robson is no longer active on Twitter

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 Check Availability/ Request a Quote 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. 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 the High Court and County Courts across much of Central England and Wales. She covers from Leeds to London, Cardiff to Norwich - Nationwide for remote hearings - and on request for in-person hearings beyond that. 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 that they have never seen counsel so well prepared . Speaking Engagements Sarah speaks around the country and on video on fixed costs. Sarah is a popular and engaging speaker. She is not fazed 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 - solicitors deal directly with Sarah from first enquiry to hearing. 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. 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 that they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is well regarded 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 practising 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 here . 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 straightforward. She understands 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 she will 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 Word copy of Chambers' Complaints Procedure can be found by clicking here . A pdf copy can be found here. If you require Chambers’ Complaints Procedure or this complaints information in an alternative or accessible format, please contact Sarah by email or telephone. 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. Please note that you must ordinarily complain to the Legal Ombudsman within one year of the act or omission complained of, or within one year of when you should reasonably have known that there was cause for complaint. You must also complain to the Legal Ombudsman within six months of receiving Chambers’ final response to your complaint. If you are dissatisfied with Chambers’ final response to your complaint, or if eight weeks have passed since you made your complaint and it has not been resolved to your satisfaction, you may have a right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman. You may make a complaint to Chambers free of charge. If you are the lay client, you may complain directly to the barrister or to Chambers. You do not have to make your complaint through your solicitor. 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

This is a Title 02 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index

Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th February 2015 - Portal offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued. Key Point Portal offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th Feb 2015 This claim had started in the MOJ RTA Portal and Part 7 proceedings were issued. Later the Defendant sought to accept the Claimant's Portal offer, but the Claimant argued that their offer was no longer available for acceptance because Part 7 proceedings had been issued (trying to distinguish this from Purcell v McGarry .) However, the court found that a Portal offer remains open for acceptance unless withdrawn and that it could not be implicitly withdrawn nor withdrawn automatically because certain events such as proceedings had been issued. This is an important case as it extends the decision in Purcell to make it clear that Portal offers remain open for acceptance unless and until withdrawn. Litigants need to be careful to ensure that they have not left any unsuitable Portal offers open if circumstances have changed. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Greyson v Fuller - the application of 7.8B of the MOJ RTA Portal protocol on soft tissue injuries Key Point Disclosure requirements of a Subsequent Medical Report in a Soft Tissue Injury Claim under para 7.8B RTA Protocol - when such reports are 'justified' and the sanction for non-compliance Greyson v Fuller The High Court decision [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) In this case the Claimant disclosed all reports simultaneously at the start of Stage 2 in a soft tissue injury claim. That was a breach of para 7.8B(2)(b) of the RTA Portal Protocol, which requires the first report to be disclosed before the subsequent report. That meant the subsequent report was not 'justified'. However, at first instance the court granted the claimant 'Relief from Sanctions' and allowed the report in. On appeal the High Court considered whether the subsequent report was justified. At [35] Mrs Justice Foster DBE considered that 'justified' did not go to the admissibility of the evidence, but that medical reports disclosed other than in compliance with the protocol was not to be treated, without more, as automatically coming within 'justifiable costs' and to be be payable. At [41] the court noted the difference between the requirement during the protocol period for the reports to be 'disclosed' whilst PD8B imposed certain requirements on the reports being 'served'. There is no requirement for service during the pre-action period. The reports in this case were all disclosed, and then for Stage 3 they were all served as required under the rules. At [43] the court noted the PD had clear mechanisms for dealing with evidence not disclosed, and the consequences of it, noting these were stringent. Attention was paid to Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v William Gerarde Blair [2019] EWCA Civ 1934, where a witness statement sent a couple of days after the end of Stage 2 was excluded at Stage 3. At [45] the court noted that 'ambush' evidence can be allowed under 7.1(3) of PD8B, which the judge considered suggested that the Stage 2 requirement for justification referred to the risk that the Claimant would not be paid for that evidence, rather than that th evidence itself would be excluded. AT [46] the court found that 'justification' connotes need, and that was reinforced by para 7.12 of the protocol, referring as it does to where a 'claimant needs' a subsequent report. That gave a rationale to the sequential disclosure approach that the protocol required, that parties could stay the proceedings if required, conduces an inexpensive resolution of such cases. At [49] the judge noted that the Claimant had argued that 7.1 and 7.2 of PD8B gave a clear discretion to include materials not provided according to the protocol. The court agreed that it would be extraordinary if, before that stage, the court were compelled to exclude mis-disclosed materials. Main Findings: a) The sanction for simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure of reports is costs at the end of the process, not exclusion of the evidence b) There was no failure to properly serve the Defendant under PD 8B para 6. c) There was no need to use para 7.1(3) of PD 8B to rely on the additional reports. As the reports were disclosed at the same time, there was no argument over whether 7.8B(2)(b) meant the first report had to be disclosed before the subsequent report was 'obtained/instructed' etc. However, it is noteworthy that at para 55(i) the judgment refers only to 'sequential disclosure' not disclosure after instruction, etc. The Appeal Judgment The First Instance Decision Click here for a copy of the 1st instance judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Davies v Greenway, Master Simons, SCCO, 30th October 2013 - on appeal the court held that the Claimant can be limited to Portal costs only where costs unreasonably or disproportionately incurred, per CPR 44 - court's powers not limited to CPR 45.24 which was not available in this case. Key Point A Claimant can be limited to Portal costs only where costs unreasonably or disproportionately incurred, per CPR 44 - court's powers not limited to CPR 45.24 Davies v Greenway Master Simmons, SCCO, 30th Oct 2013 The Claimant failed to use the Portal against the correct Defendant. Parties agreed damages and costs went for assessment. At first instance, the court held that an order for standard basis costs precluded an award under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24). However, Master Simmons held that he could only award costs which were proportionate and reasonably incurred. He found that all costs incurred above Portal costs were disproportionate and thus the Claimant was awarded Portal costs only. NB the later decision of Brown v Ezeugwa found that standard basis costs did allow an award directly under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24) as well as under the proportionality test here. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

About Sarah Robson Barrister - Black Belt Barrister - Fixed Costs Specialist. Article in Counsel Magazine about being a black belt barrister. Newspaper interview with The Sun regarding Tyson Fury and liability orders. Geographical Areas for in person hearings - based in the East Midlands, she covers Norwich to Southampton, Cardiff to York, Bristol to Liverpool. About Sarah Robson Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Geographical Area Covered The yellow circle shows the courts that Sarah Robson normally works in for in person hearings, although most of her work is still remote so all courts in England & Wales are available. Sarah Robson is closest to courts around the Coventry / Northampton / Milton Keynes / Birmingham / Leicester / Reading area, but also regularly travels to Birkenhead, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol and across London. Sarah will travel further by arrangement. The Sun Newspaper - December 2023 Sarah Robson was interviewed by a National Newspaper, The Sun, regarding a specialist court case concerning liability orders for the boxer, Tyson Fury. This article appeared on the front page of The Sun in December 2023. Read the article here: Tyson Fury's next big fight is against the tax man - after champ accused of dodging massive bill | The Sun Counsel Magazine Oct 2023 Lessons learnt: The black belt barrister | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales (counselmagazine.co.uk) Counsel magazine recently ran an article about Sarah Robson being a black belt and a barrister, in particular how each 'skill set' impacts on the other. Alpha Court Chambers Sarah practices at: Alpha Court Chambers alphacourtchambers.co.uk 12 Paddock Close Bidford-on-Avon, Alcester Warwickshire B50 4PJ Professional clients should ring for Sarah's postal address if needed.

Key Point Key Point Common law Mistake does not apply in the MOJ Portal Protocol Draper v Newport DJ Baker, Birkenhead CC, 3rd September 2014 Here the only issue was whether common law mistake applied to cases in the Portal. The Claimant's solicitor accidentally accepted the Defendant's offer. She immediately rang the Defendant but was unable to get through to the correct person. She uploaded a letter to the Portal within half an hour to confirm that the offer had been accepted in error. The judge considered the nature of the Portal and went through the facts against the over-riding objective. He determined that it would fundamentally undermine the Portal if common law mistake was allowed to apply. The Claimant's solicitor simply should have been more careful. It has been interesting to see how often this first instance and non-binding decision has been followed. It took 4 years for anyone to bring the issue to first tier appeal in Fitton v Ageas. Interestingly both counsel in the later case of Harris v Brown submitted that the Claimant here did not know that a mistake had been made, and thus distinguished it. Unfortunately that is clearly wrong, as the Claimant here was well aware that they had made a mistake, as shown by them uploading the letter to say exactly that. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point Key Point Where there are two claimants in a SIIIA fixed costs claim, each claimant is entitled to a separate award of fixed costs Melloy & Anor v UK Insurance Ltd [2022] EW Misc 4 (CC) The court had to consider what costs to award two claimants where they had brought separate claims in the portal, but a joint claim in Part 7 proceedings. At [10], HHJ Glen held that 'claim' and 'claimant' refer to the claim started by, and the claimant who submitted the CNF, rather than to the claim or claimant in the proceedings. He derived support for this position from West v Burton [2021] EWCA Civ 1005, where the court found that the executor of a claimant who had died after Portal proceedings had commenced was not 'the claimant' for the purposes of fixed costs on leaving the Portal. Therefore, he concluded that where there were two or more claimants in proceedings for damages that fall within SIIIA of CPR 45, assuming each had submitted a CNF, were separately entitled to all the costs set out in Table 6B. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index