BCL Law Notes Principles of Civil Procedure Notes
A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BCL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Costs
Policy factors
Need for efficient market, which requires transparency of information – re price (including time where time-based), quality, cost price, etc
Difficulty in civil litigation
Difficult to determine — not a transparent market
scope of work & time required
Also difficult to compare quality
Agency problem
Lawyer’s economic interests at odds with client – lawyer can determine that scope – because client lack expertise
Preservation of monopolies – eg notaries, rights of audience
Monopolisation of rights of audience
Exacerbated by
Hourly rates of pay
Cost shifting
Legal aid
Reform
Prosecution taken in-house
Defence – firms of solicitors required to bid for blocks of work, which creates competition
Arguments in principle
Three rationales compete for the basis for costs schemes. Corrective justice would be best served by a traditionally British costs shifting system where no party is out of pocket for successfully vindicating or defending their rights. Distributive justice would be best served by spreading the cost of litigation appropriately between parties and the public at large via taxes or insurance, via such mechanisms as QOCS and ATE. Litigant autonomy would be best served by an American system where each party determines their own investment in litigation without fear or expectation of costs orders.
Although all three must play a role, corrective justice should be the starting point because, unlike the other two, it has a valid normative claim rather than merely an instrumental one. However, corrective costs shifting alone cannot attain the instrumental aspirations of equity and access to justice shared by all three rationales. Rather, where the risk and amount of adverse cost orders is unpredictable risk-averse parties will be discouraged from litigating. Certainty is needed to avoid the deterrent threat of large adverse cost orders. A degree of autonomy and individual responsibility for costs is needed to incentivise cost control. Clarity is needed to encourage settlement and avoid satellite litigation. Simplicity is needed to avoid tactical exploitation of finely tuned rules. On these fronts, the costs rules in England have failed and post-Jackson will most likely go on failing.
Costs recovery <> no costs recovery — economic analysis
Indemnity<>standard basis
Standard basis — whether reasonably incurred + whether proportionate <> indemnity — only whether reasonably incurred
If no cost recovery — rational to proceed if —
Value of litigation x prospects of success > (Certain) cost of litigation
EG 10k x 50% > 4k 5k > 4k
EG 10k x 80% > 4k 8k > 4k
If cost shifting — rational to proceed if —
Value of litigation x prospects of success > Prospects of failure x (cost of own litigation + cost of opponent’s litigation)
EG 10k x 50% > 50% x (4k + 4k) 5k > 4k
EG 10k x 80% > 20% x (4k + 4k) 8k > 1.6k
IE more favourable to parties with greater prospects of success
BUT aggravated by
Risk factor — if one party more risk averse = has less resources — less likely to engage
fact that richer=less risk averse party incurs more costs
costs not fixed — can be expanded by protracted litigation, appeals, etc
uncertainty of costs
Creates ‘ratchet effect’ where it is rational for parties once engaged in litigation to expend greater amounts to win & recover costs
Cost shifting — Arguments in favour
Justice – redressing wrongs should include reasonable costs
Positive Law
CPR 44.2(4) states that court to have regard to all circs incl conduct of parties
44.2(5) says conduct of parties incl before & during proceedings, disregard of PDs, whether reasonable to raise, pursue or contest a particular issue and the manner in which done so; whether exaggerated partly-successful claim
Blame gives reason for exempting public authorities from costs — as they are acting in the public interest eg in disciplinary proceedings — Baxendale-Walker v Law Society
Argument
Fault-based justification – characterisation of failed litigation as fault
access to justice is fundamental rights
Costs required to make full indemnity — whether by C for inconvenience of failed litigation or by D for refusing to give compensation — Arkin v Borchard Lines per Lord Phillips MR
Causation is therefore a vital consideration
Response
Analogy between litigant & tortfeasor is weak — litigation short of abuse of process or malicious prosecution is not a ‘wrong’
Lord Denning — “every civilised system” must make available to its citizens a means of dispute resolution
Weak cases involve less cost — will be struck out or summary judgment
Assumes judges will get it right — eg findings of fact are only on balance of probabilities, but have to pay full costs
Assumes ‘declaratory’ theory of justice — that there was an ascertainable objective truth before litigation, therefore fault
Where dependent on factual question — clearly is a factual truth
Except that not all factual questions ascertainable — some information would be available to parties — disclosure in course of litigation may reveal
Where dependent on a legal question — no certainty
Access to justice – if have no financial resources won’t pursue claim
Argument
Instrumental argument — based on restorative principle
Would effectively allow discounting of debts — debtor would just let creditor sue or offer to settle for less, even for clear debts
Justifies only compensatory not punitive view of costs — that successful party’s position should not be worse off because they had to go to court to vindicate rights: Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group (1998) per Dyson LJ
Inversely — deters unmeritorious claims/defences; encourage compromise
EG CPR 36 offers with costs consequences
BUT settlement induced by fear of costs risk is not a fair or desirable one
Arguments for No Cost shifting
If parties bear own costs – will regulate their own costs
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes.
A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BCL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started