Waszak bolsters 4 New Square’s costs team
Costs junior Matthew Waszak has joined 4 New Square from Temple Garden Chambers.
While his early practice was rooted in a broad range of civil common law work, 4 New Square said he now specialised in all aspects of costs litigation and litigation funding.
Head of chambers Nick Bacon QC said: “We are absolutely delighted to have Matt join us. Matt has already established an excellent reputation in the field of costs and will add yet more depth to the 4 New Square costs team.
Mr Waszak said he was “absolutely thrilled”, adding: “I have long admired its outstanding work and look forward to working with and alongside the Bar’s leading costs practitioners.”
Court of Appeal to consider electronic bills next month
The Court of Appeal hearing of the appeal in AKC v Barking and Havering Health Authority  EWHC 2607 (QB) is to be held on 12 April, ACL special adviser Professor Dominic Regan has tweeted.
Well-known costs QC Simon Browne, who is acting in the case with Matthew Waszak as his junior, has previously said the court recognised that guidance was required as to the contents and presentation of e-bills.
Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that a bill of costs was not properly certified if the signatory’s name was not identifiable, and that a paper bill and an electronic one were defective in not giving the name and status of each fee-earner, and not identifying the work they had done.
Upper Tribunal says it can award indemnity costs
The distinction drawn in the CPR between the standard and indemnity bases of costs assessment “can properly inform the exercise of discretion” by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal when deciding on costs, the Upper Tribunal has ruled.
This was even though no mention of the basis of costs assessment was made in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
In R (on the application of Butt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Indemnity costs)  UKUT 69 (IAC), the tribunal agreed to award indemnity costs against the government, having said the distinction between the standard and indemnity bases were well known and understood across the civil justice system and applied in judicial review proceedings that took place in the High Court and beyond.
There was “no reason not to employ it in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal”.