Litigant in person hourly rate

From 1st October the hourly rate for a litigant in person will increase from £9.25 to £18.00 - 57th amendment to CPR - See the section "The Costs Practice Direction supplementing Parts 43-48 "

This will only affect litigants in person who secure costs order against another party.

In family proceedings, with the exception of the divorce suit (the bit where you end the marriage), the normal rule is that there is no order for costs therefore the hourly rate increase will have no effect. It is therefore rare to obtain a costs order in family proceedings.

As a point of clarification, applications made by a person against their cohabitee under The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 are subject to the rule that 'costs follow the event' which means that the person that succeeds in those proceedings (whether claimant or defendant) will usually be awarded their costs.

'Costs following the event' is the principle that is disapplied in family proceedings.

Charles

Charles, that is a whopping great % increase!

Wish I''d had that, lol!

Thanks,

YA

Hi

Would this rate apply for anyone self repping a Variation of a Court Order? Assuming costs were awarded?

Thanks,

EA

If you are applying for a variation of an order to which you are party, I very much doubt you will obtain a costs order to cover your time - generally court fees would be allowed but not a lot else.

Litigant in person costs are generally meant for civil litigation matters where there is a claimant and defendant who either has to issue proceedings for damages or loss or defend a claim for damages or loss. In civil proceedings costs follow the event which means that the winner would ordinarily obtain a costs order in their favour. In family proceedings the starting point is that each party bear their own costs.

Charles

Hi, I am currently going through divorce and have just sent my Form G and H plus questionnaire etc to my husbands solicitor. I am a Lit and have only noted the solicitors charges (that I visit when desperate) and not put in anything for me. Would this matter as it is a 'family matter' and I am under the impression we pay our own way?
Another kind Wiki member has advised me about my time and costs.
I can start building up a log of the hours involved and receipts for post..in for all the printing, photos printed for evidence etc.
Do you think this would benefit me?and should i bring it up in court/

Many thanks:unsure:

I love this website

The main point of the Form H is to show what your current indebtedness is as far as legal fees goes. The form E will illustrate your assets and liabilities but legal fees are a moving target and they need to be updated for each hearing.

If you were to go to a final hearing a judge would refer to the Form E to decide what a fair split would be and, ideally, vary the figures depending upon the amount of legal costs that remain to be paid. This is why the Form H shows a global figure and what has been paid towards that figure. The difference will be the sum outstanding to your solicitor.

In the case of a litigant in person, they cannot be indebted to themselves for legal fees therefore there is little point in adding their own notional costs.

The secondary purpose of the Form H is to show the court what has been spent during proceedings. The courts are meant to ensure that proceedings are conducted at proportionate cost but if each party spends £50k arguing over assets of £100k, it would be totally disproportionate. The Form H would bear this out.

Charles

Hi Charles

A quick question for you.

You mention Form H which shows the court what has been spent during proceedings, and that the courts are meant to ensure proceedings are conducted at proportionate cost.

What happens if one party is running up legal costs at an incredible rate (or they and their solicitor claim to be incurring these costs) ?

In my case, the stbx has incurred ridiculous fee's. They are now expecting those fee's to be treated as a debt, and are seeking a higher settlement as they claim the debt needs be paid off to enable a Clean Break. Can the court do anything about this ?