DAC and third party costs order

With thanks to the member who sent me the posting on LinkedIn (no further details are yet available), DAC Beachcroft have adopted LinkedIn as the place where they can crow about results in selective cases. On this occasion, Matthew Gillett of Lamb Chambers wrote the initial post in which he said:


"It is always a pleasure to work with the great team of lawyers at DAC Beachcroft, including for the initial application, the striking out of the case and now, finally, to ensuring that the 'real party' to the litigation pays their way." Ieuan Poole, a credit hire team manager at DAC Beachcroft added the detail:


"Following strike out of a credit hire and storage claim in excess of £14,000, DAC Beachcroft have secured another non-party costs order against a credit hire company for their client's costs - this time in excess of £10,000.


"A strong reminder that when conducting litigation the 'real party', who benefits from or controls the litigation, can expect to foot the bill where adverse costs are awarded against the Claimant.


"Excellent work and a special thank you to our Owen Newcombe and counsel Mathew Gillett of Lamb Chambers".


Nothing else has yet been posted on the DAC Beachcroft website or on the Lamb Chambers website.


Reminder


As a reminder, Guy Kirkham of MTA Solicitors posted an item in the Forum recently. I have repeated the post below, for convenience of those impacted by these issues. "I would like to share a positive result from this week where we successfully opposed an application for a non party costs order against a CHO which I know is something of a live issue at present.


"The Claimant's case was initially heard on 17/01/2020 at Huddersfield CC and included personal injury, vehicle damages and hire charges however a finding of fundamental dishonesty was made, the claim dismissed and the Defendant's solicitors (OCL Solicitors acting on behalf of One Insurance Limited) were awarded their costs assessed on the day at £14,000.00.


"OCL made an application on or about 26/02/2020 to have the CHO added to the proceedings and for them to show cause why they should not be liable for all or part of the costs. The Court approved the application to add the CHO on 12/03/2020 and listed the matter to be heard on 16/10/2020 with the hearing reserved for the Judge who made the initial finding of fundamental dishonesty.


"It was at this point I was instructed by the CHO to protect their position and oppose the application and having considered the evidence relied on by OCL Solicitors which extended to circa 150 pages and included Select Cat Rentals (North West) Ltd v Esure Services Ltd (2017) EWHC and Farrell v Direct Accident Management Services Ltd (2009) EWCA, amongst others, I filed and served a case specific statement in rebuttal.


"This was followed by a response from OCL around a month later offering to withdraw their application which was agreed on the proviso they pay the CHO's wasted costs of the application which they in turn agreed this week.


"The hearing is still proceeding on 16/10/2020 however this is now restricted to the solicitors who dealt with the initial action with the CHO no longer being party to the action and potentially £14k better off !


"Happy to elaborate on the above and if anyone is interested feel free to message me directly."

17 views0 comments

©2020 by The Credit Hire Forum, Kemp House, 160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX.

PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE