Blog - Wednesday 21 August 2013

The Kitchen Sink

Yesterday was day 1 of an 8 day Detailed Assessment Hearing, where I am instructed by the paying party (PP – for those 2 avid readers who read and use my costs abbreviations -  you know who you are). The receiving party (RP) served its Bill over a year ago.

Preliminary Point (also PP but I’ve already used that, damn) 22 relates to ‘Sustenance and Sundries’ in which RP has claimed £53,000 for “Paid – Sustenance and Sundries”.  RP served no disbursement vouchers in support of the same and maintained the item in its Replies to the PODs.

RP concedes the point at Assessment yesterday, without so much as a wimper.

Such a capitulation raises (in my rather disturbed mind) two big issues:

  1. If RP had incurred those costs, why not maintain them, evidence how you spend £53k on sandwiches from Pret (other chain stores are available) and seek to justify the same.

  2. If RP knew it had not incurred or could not support such a claim, why make it.

£53k in anyone’s book is a lot of money.  It pays Wayne Rooney for about 15 minutes of kicking a football. It pays Jimmy Anderson for about 6 months.  It pays for roughly 3.5 trainee solicitors. It doesn’t pay for the amount of gel I use on my hair. 

In any event, situation 1 and 2 is simply unacceptable.  However the Court (the SCCO) won’t sanction RP, even though it simply ‘chanced its arm’ at over £53k of fees.

Repeat after me:

“What do we want?”

“Sanctions for made and unsustainable claims!”

“When do we want them?”

“After my lobster sandwich platter!”