Costs Litigation | UK Bar

4 New Square Chambers has expert practitioners at both silk and junior level. Its members handle the leading costs matters, as evidenced by their involvement in Belsner v Cam Legal, which was dubbed 'the costs case of the decade'. This year members are involved in high-profile matters including Diag Human v Volterra Fietta and Thomson Snell & Passmore v Kenig. Individuals often handle group litigation costs matters, inter partes cases and solicitor-client disputes, and routinely appear before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Further capabilities include the drafting of conditional and contingency fee agreements. A source remarked: "4 New Square is the UK's leading costs set and has significant strength in depth from KCs down to pupils". Similarly, another instructing solicitor stated: "The depth and breadth of the team at 4 New Square are unrivalled".

Home to a number of leading lights in the costs litigation field, Hailsham Chambers handles the full range of costs cases covering such matters as changes in funding, Part 36 offers, proportionality and non-party costs orders. Recent work undertaken by members of the set includes the case of Various Claimants v BHP Group PLC, which involves an immense group action claim, and Diag Human v Volterra Fietta, a case significant for its relevance to litigation funding agreements in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR. An instructing solicitor remarks that Hailsham has a "good all round selection of experience, from smart, newish juniors to heavy hitting KCs". Another source reiterates the set's depth, stating it has a "wide range of experience right through its ranks covering all areas of costs".

The barristers at 39 Essex Chambers receive plaudits for the depth of their knowledgein costs matters. Members here act in solicitor-client disputes, and are experts in detailed cost assessments involving group action litigation, clinical negligence and personal injury claims. Members continue to advise on costs issues in high-profile cases such as Dr. Craig Wright v The Person or Persons Unknown Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.bitcoin.org, and UK Trucks Claim Limited v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which involved an appeal by PACCAR to the Supreme Court.One interviewee commented: "There is a plethora of excellent costs specialist barristers at 39 Essex Chambers, with a wide variety of skills. They cover all levels of disputes". Another source confirmed the set's strength in depth: "I have used the the entire team and I can tell you that there's counsel here for every type of case and client".

Kings Chambers' members are regulars in the appeal courts and its barristers have particular expertise in class action hearings, non-party cost orders, retainer drafting and solicitor–own client disputes, as well as a host of other costs-related areas. They also have significant experience of acting as mediators in complex cost mediations. Recent work carried out by barristers at the set includes Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors, in which permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted. An interviewee commented: "The sheer number of costs-only advocates means that the set has experience for all costs work from top to bottom".Another source stated: "Kings is an outstanding costs set, where all the barristers are excellent and very personable".

Gatehouse Chambers houses expert costs barristers who routinely act in high-profile appellate cases and appear in both the High Court and Supreme Court. Members handle applications for security for costs, wasted costs and non-party costs orders, as well as professional negligence claims. One source comments that the set's "costs and funding expertise is notable". The barristers at Gatehouse have recently appeared in Wilkins v Serco, a costs case which has significance for to all future false imprisonment claims.

Landmark Chambers' practitioners regularly appear in major costs cases, including those before the SCCO, Court of Appealand Supreme Court. Recent matters include the Court of Appeal case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil and Candey v Crumpler, a Supreme Court case concerning solicitors’ charging orders for unpaid costs. The set's members handle a range of matters involving wasted costs, security for costs applications and detailed assessments. They also tackle solicitors’ liens and advise in relation to the Solicitors Act. An interviewee remarks: "Landmark has very considerable depth and expertise. It is a good set to go to for the more complex cases".