Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant (a tenant) obtained a default costs certificate after the Birmingham City Council failed to file points of dispute within 21 days. The Council argued the bill of costs was invalid due to the solicitor not certifying compliance with the indemnity principle. The court dismissed the Council's appeal, ruling that a defective bill is not a nullity and the default costs certificate remains valid unless set aside discretionarily.
Issues
- The central issue is whether the absence of a mandatory certification statement in a bill of costs (that costs do not exceed the receiving party's liability) renders the bill invalid under CPR 47.6. The court examines if a solicitor's signature implicitly confirms indemnity principle compliance, and whether procedural defects like missing certifications can nullify a bill or if remedies under CPR 3.10 apply.
- The appeal considers the Council's application to set aside a default costs certificate obtained due to their failure to file points of dispute. The court addresses whether the Council's arguments about the bill's defects (including missing indemnity certification) justify setting aside the certificate as a matter of right or discretion, emphasizing proportionality and the risks of rewarding procedural delays.
Holdings
The court held that a bill of costs is not invalid if it lacks an explicit certification of compliance with the indemnity principle, as the solicitor's signature alone constitutes sufficient implicit certification. The claimant's bill was valid to commence detailed assessment, and the default costs certificate was properly issued after the Council failed to serve points of dispute within 21 days.
Remedies
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the Council's appeal against the default costs certificate, holding that a failure to include certification of compliance with the indemnity principle in the bill of costs did not render it invalid or a nullity. The claimant was therefore entitled to the default costs certificate when the Council failed to serve points of dispute within the 21-day period.
- The claimant obtained a default costs certificate under CPR 47.11 after the Council did not file points of dispute within the 21-day period following service of the bill of costs. The court confirmed this was valid, as the defective certification in the bill did not nullify the process.
- The Council remains entitled to pursue its alternative application under CPR 47.12(2) for a discretionary order permitting it to dispute the bill of costs. The court did not address the merits of this application in its judgment.
Legal Principles
The court held that the indemnity principle requires costs claims to be limited to an indemnity for the receiving party's expenses, not a bonus. A solicitor's signature on a bill of costs implicitly certifies compliance with this principle, making separate express certification unnecessary unless there are suspicious circumstances. Defective bills (e.g., missing indemnity certification) are not nullities but may be subject to discretionary remedies under CPR 3.10.
Precedent Name
- Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC
- Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd
- Gempride Ltd v Bamrah
- Choudhury v Islam
- Pittalis v Grant
- General of Berne Insurance Company v Jardine Reinsurance Management Limited
Cited Statute
- Practice Direction 47
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
- Lord Justice Phillips
- Lord Justice Nugée
- Lord Justice Newey
Passage Text
- The signature of the bill required by the rules should have done that already.
- It is very far from the case that a bill of costs which fails fully to comply with the rules should invariably be struck out, let alone treated as a nullity. Typically, a defect will, at the most, warrant a lesser sanction.
- A solicitor who knowingly or recklessly signs and serves a bill which does not comply with the indemnity principle would be committing a most serious disciplinary offence even absent inclusion of express certification of compliance.