High Court clarifies costs obligations in legal case

In the recent case of Jonathan Franklin v Your Lawyers Limited, the High Court of Justice’s Senior Courts Costs Office addressed a nuanced issue regarding the costs associated with legal proceedings. The judgment, delivered on 22nd April 2025, set out the circumstances surrounding a personal injury claim made by Mr. Jonathan Franklin against his former solicitors, Your Lawyers Limited. Mr. Franklin had sustained injuries from an accident at work on 15th November 2018. After instructing Your Lawyers Limited to represent him, his claim was successfully concluded on 14th December 2020, resulting in a settlement. However, complications arose when the defendant failed to provide a final invoice for the legal costs incurred during this process. This oversight led Mr. Franklin, represented by Mr. James Green of JG Solicitors, to seek clarification and an eventual statutory bill from the defendant.

Initial requests for the final statute bill were made on 14th August 2024, with the expectation that it would be delivered within a 14-day timeframe. However, the defendant’s senior manager, Matthew Plemper, responded stating he could not act until a properly signed authority form was received. This exchange was indicative of a larger issue surrounding communication and obligations under the pre-action protocols, which expect parties to engage effectively to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. Despite a second authority being provided and a further request sent on 25th September 2024 for the final bill by 9th October, no substantive response was received. This prompted Mr. Green to escalate the situation, sending a letter on 15th October that detailed the previous correspondence while warning that litigation would follow should the request remain unaddressed. When the final bill was not received in time, proceedings were initiated on 30th October 2024.

During the proceedings, the court examined the conduct of both parties under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) regarding costs, particularly focusing on CPR 44.2, which states that "costs follow the event." This principle suggests that the losing party in legal proceedings usually bears the costs of the successful party. Mr. Mason, representing the defendant, argued that not only should Franklin not receive his costs for the proceedings but that he should be liable for the defendant's costs, citing issues of conduct throughout the claims process. However, the judge, Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley, scrutinised this assertion in light of the obligations expected of legal practitioners, especially around the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, which emphasises that litigation should be a last resort.

The judgment revealed a stark contrast between the parties’ approaches towards the communication surrounding the request for the final statute bill. The judge noted that while the defendant had historically complied with similar requests in prior cases without the need for litigation, the delays and lack of communication in this case were unclear and unjustified. In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of the claimant, awarding Mr. Franklin his costs associated with the application, stating that the defendant's conduct did not warrant a departure from the usual rule that costs should follow the event. The judgement reinforces the importance of thorough communication and compliance with pre-action protocols among legal practitioners, ultimately highlighting that failure to adhere to such communication can lead to significant financial repercussions. This ruling has broad implications for the conduct of solicitors and claimants alike, underscoring not just the procedural requirements but also the crucial need for transparency and diligence in the management of legal costs and client communications