The Senior Court Costs Office (SCCO) Gearing up for Costs War

Law costs are a serious matter. The general rule is that the cost of litigation to be awarded to the prevailing party must not violate the principle of indemnity. Let me put it to you this way, law costs must only be used to revert the prevailing party to the status quo prior to the act or omission complained about, no more and no less. The Role of the Senior Court Costs Office (SCCO)rnThe common misconception I want to clarify is this “The SCCO is there to cut law costs as computed by costs draftsmen”. This may be true in some cases but it is only one aspect of the same. The SCCO is meant to ensure that costing is fair. In other words, it is not too high so as to be punitive and not so low as to be insufficient to fully indemnify the aggrieved party. In this regard, the SCCO is empowered by statute and jurisprudence to: • Determine how much costs the prevailing party can collect from the losing party. • Determine attorneys fees in publicly defended cases be made payable against public fundsrn• Determine how much a client is supposed to pay the barrister taking into consideration the effort exerted, complexity of the legal issue, as well as the eminence of the advocate. What is Actually Happening?rnIn my opinion, a great deal of advocates jack up their litigation costs for several reasons. This can be with or without the consent or knowledge of the client. The most common excuse is that, it is better to increase the law costs since in most cases the courts will cut it anyway. As a general rule the court must respect out of court ancillary contracts. The problem is, sometimes one party can get away with challenging the same by prevailing upon the court to see beyond the agreement and into the fairness of the agreement. This is after very expensive legal costings and the hiring of costs draftsman (London). Based on my research, the SCCO is currently striving to add more teeth to the cancellation of contracts for CFA’s. At the very least there is a move to educate party litigants about their rights to negate validity of the contingent contracts within seven (7) days from receipt of notice informing them of such right. This way advocates will be forced to increase transparency and accountability in order not to waste time in renegotiating for a contingent contract.