Oliver Moore

Oliver receives instructions from top tier firms nationwide, to advise and / or represent parties in all aspects of Civil Costs.

Instructions have covered a wide range of practice areas (including property litigation, wills and trust disputes, Court of Protection) but most often arise from Personal Injury / Clinical Negligence claims.

Oliver has advised and represented parties in relation to Costs Litigation disputes for many years (he did his first “taxation” (as it was pre-CPR) over 25 years ago) and has a great depth of experience and knowledge.

Oliver is frequently instructed:

• To attend detailed assessments, particularly at the SCCO / before Regional Costs Judges, where costs are high and there are complex issues.
• To advise on points of principle in detailed assessments and likely Costs recovery.
• To settle Costs pleadings in complex cases.
• To advise on and represent parties in respect of Costs Management in complex / high Costs cases.
• To advise on Part 36 issues.
• In disputes over Orders for Costs.
• For Costs Appeals.
• In respect of Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) issues.

Oliver is the author of the chapters on Costs Appeals and Part 36 for the legal publication “Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service”.

Featured Costs & Litigation Funding cases

Messenger v Zenith

Advised the defendant on the issue of principle regarding the effect of the claimant’s conduct on costs assessed, where CMO had been made. The defendant contended that the claimant had failed to mitigate his loss, and if he had pursued a reasonable claim it would have been a small claim. A Regional Costs Judge accepted that he could make findings on assessment re failure to mitigate, that the complainant had failed to mitigate, and costs allowed should be based on small claims costs.

Storey v Swann

Instructed for the appellant for appeal on costs order. Issue. This concerned the effect of the defendant’s successful Part 36 offer on liability of 50 / 50 in fixed costs PersonaI Injury cases. The defendant made no successful quantum offer but the claimant was awarded no costs, despite being awarded substantial damages. Permission to appeal was granted by Mr Justice Murray and appeal was then compromised.

Price v Saundry

Proceedings following Trusts litigation (that had gone to the Court of Appeal). Two distinct parts of litigation were involved, a removal claim and account claim. There was a complex issue regarding the interpretation of costs management rules and application to DA in the circumstances, and whether the receiving party should have revised its costs budget re account claim and, if it should, were costs of account claim recoverable. Successfully argued in preliminary issues hearing that the budget should have been varied.

Jones and Davies v Davies and Vaughan

Appeared for the defence before Regional Costs Judge Phillips. This was a Costs dispute arising from litigation regarding whether a valid Trust existed. Numerous issues of principle were involved, with the key issue being recoverability of VAT on costs claimed. The Judge accepted arguments as to appropriate test, and that VAT not recoverable inter partes.

Advised and represented 3rd to 30th and 32nd defendants re costs issues and DA proceedings arising from £multi-million contentious probate, multi-party, litigation. Total costs sought were upwards of £1.5 million. Numerous points of principle and issues were raised including the CFAs, division of costs with non-CFA clients, alleged duplication with another firm, reasonableness of Leading Counsel’s fees, and amount of success fees.

DA before Master Nagalingham in the Senior Courts Costs Office. The Master accepted arguments that there were good reasons to depart upwards given developments, and the absence of an application for approval of increased budget did not preclude good reasons being applied.

DA before Regional Costs Judge with costs of £245,000. Instructed regarding the preliminary issues hearing.

DA before Master Brown with various issues on assessment including proportionality and hourly rates (the reasonableness of instructing solicitors in London).

A Costs dispute arising from very complex, protracted, property litigation, with substantial costs (c£800,0000) to be the subject of assessment. Advised and represented the Receiving Parties regarding an application under CPR 47.8 before HHJ Cotter QC (now Cotter J.) and Regional Costs Judge Middleton (sitting as an Assessor).

Advised and represented the complainant regarding Costs Management in complex clinical negligence claim, pleaded at £4.6m with 9 expert disciplines. the total budget (incurred and approved budgeted costs) was £550,000. Following settlement, Oliver was instructed to advise regarding costs recovery, offers and settlement. Issues of principle included good reasons to depart from budget, and hourly rates Represented the complainant at a DA preliminary issues hearing.

Advised and represented a claimant regarding Costs Management in a claim involving severe brain injury pleaded at upwards of £3m. Key issues included whether the Court should approve the budget providing for Leading Counsel, whether the budget should provide for two Counsel, and the reasonable and proportionate fees for Counsel. Master McCloud accepted submissions that it was reasonable to instruct Leading Counsel and it was a two Counsel case. The total budget was more than £850,000.

Costs issues arising from Court of Protection proceedings. The costs of solicitors instructed by the Official Solicitor had been assessed on paper in SCCO. Attorneys disputed reasonableness, and had not paid costs from the estate as ordered. Oliver sdvised and represented said Attorneys on Receiving Party’s application regarding the costs heard in the Court of Protection.

Advice on the application of QOCS in a provisional damages case.

Advice on later acceptance of a Part 36 offer.