Pritchard Englefield (a firm) & Anor v Steinberg, Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Cost Office, March 27, 2003, [2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

Extract

---

Pritchard Englefield (a firm) & Anor v Steinberg, Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Cost Office, March 27, 2003, [2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

Case No: 1998 P No.654

SCCO Ref: 0209606

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPREME COURTS COST OFFICE

Supreme Courts Cost Office

Clifford Inn

Fetter Lane

London

EC4A 1DQ

Date: 27 March 2003

Before :

MASTER ROGERS, COSTS JUDGE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Alexander Hutton (instructed by Messrs Pritchard Englefield) for the Claimants/Respondents

Mr Ian Torrance (a partner in Messrs Bernard Oberman & Co) for the Defendant

Hearing date : 13 February 2003

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTS JUDGE'S RESERVED JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM COSTS OFFICER

Judgment

Master Rogers

THE BACKGROUND

1. The First Claimant is a firm of solicitors and the Second Claimant was a partner therein until 1 October 2002, since when he has been a consultant. The Defendant was called to the English Bar in 1976 and practised in this country for some 5 years or so before moving to America. He has not practised in this country for at least 10 years, and is not a "practising" barrister within the definition contained in the Bar's Code of Practice. He is however an attorney licensed to practice in the fused legal profession in the state of New York, and, I was told at the hearing of this appeal by Mr Torrance, his solicitor, that he now has rights of audience in Federal Courts in the USA.

2. The Defendant instructed the Claimant firm to represent him in relation to proceedings which he desired to bring against his former counsel, who subsequently became a Judge, for damages for professional negligence. The second Claimant, Mr Cohn had the conduct of that matter. After its conclusion, disputes arose between the Claimants and the Defendant, which led firstly to litigation between them in relation to the payment of charges by the Defendant. This in turn led to proceedings which involved an application for summary judgment, and a counterclaim, but ultimately the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. Subsequently the Claimants took proceedings to obtain a charging order over property which the Defendant had within the jurisdiction of the English courts. That led to further litigation in the Chancery Division which has resulted in costs orders in favour of the Claimants against the Defendant which are awaiting assessment. At the request of both sides I agreed, at the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal, to give directions to ensure that those two bills, which are well below the costs officer level, should in fact be heard by me, because of the issu...

See the full content of this document

---