We also report on new OPG fixed costs guidance and a costs firm defending a vulnerable client
Protective costs order first
The High Court has issued what is thought to be the first protective costs order in private law proceedings outside of the family court.
It was granted to two environmental campaign groups, Mums for Lungs and ClientEarth, so that they can apply without costs risk to lift redactions to the parties’ statements of case in the Dieselgate litigation.
A trial scheduled for October will decide whether certain diesel vehicles manufactured by Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Nissan, Peugeot Citroën, and Ford were fitted with prohibited defeat devices. It is alleged in claims brought by vehicle owners that these devices artificially lowered NOx levels during emissions testing in order to circumvent legal emissions limits.
Mums for Lungs and ClientEarth, which are not parties to the case, are seeking access to material from the proceedings that explains the operation and impact of any alleged defeat devices in the vehicles. In particular, they want the court to lift redactions by the vehicle companies to information which shows how the alleged defeat devices functioned, including at what temperature, speed, torque and other thresholds they were operational.
At the moment, this information is either redacted or behind a confidentiality barrier that members of the public cannot access. Unless these restrictions are removed, campaigners say it is likely that almost all of the trial will need to be conducted behind closed doors.
The court ordered this week that the two groups would have costs protection for their application, but that the defendants would have permission to vary it if any parts of it are pursued unreasonably.
Shazia Yamin, the partner at London firm Mishcon de Reya acting pro bono for Mums for Lungs and ClientEarth, said: “Securing this protection was important as, without it, there was a significant risk that our clients would not be able to proceed with their applications, which are brought in the interests of the wider public and open justice.
“We look forward to the next step which will be a hearing in July to decide whether public access to the information sought by our clients is granted.”
OPG issues fixed costs guidance for deputies
The Office of the Public Guardian last week issued guidance setting out its position on a number of issues related to fixed costs that may be charged by professional and public authority deputies in line with Practice Direction 19B.
The guidance sets out some general principles regarding fixed costs and remuneration, and how professional and public authority deputies should apply the schedule of fixed costs and remuneration set out in the practice direction. It also provides guidance on a number of issues related to the specific interpretation of certain categories of fixed costs.
It follows publication last month of updated guidance when submitting estimates of costs and bills for assessment.
Firm successfully defends vulnerable client
A North-West costs firm has trumpeted its success in defending a single mother of three who was pursued by a law firm for fees related to her daughter’s personal injury claim – despite a court ruling that those deductions were unjustified.
According to Integral Legal Costs, District Judge Josling at Leeds County Court refused to approve deductions of over £5,000 from the child’s damages, criticising both the 100% success fee and the £1,560 after-the-event insurance premium as “unreasonable and disproportionate”.
However, the solicitors later attempted to claim over £5,000 from the mother personally, citing alleged non-cooperation.
Integral challenged the legitimacy of this claim on multiple grounds, including a failure to secure informed consent from a vulnerable client, lack of a proper risk assessment to justify the fees, the absence of clear, statutory billing, and procedural unfairness and a potential abuse of power. In response, the solicitors discontinued the action.
Victoria Morrison-Hughes, managing director at Integral Legal Costs, said: “This is a clear case where a vulnerable individual was nearly forced to bear a wholly unjustified cost burden. We’re proud to have brought this matter to a just and ethical conclusion, safeguarding our client’s rights and wellbeing.”
She added that the case highlight “the importance of accessible legal protections and the duty of solicitors to act in their clients’ best interests – particularly when vulnerable individuals are involved”.