Possession Claim Costs Order

In the below example we can see how even a solicitor can act unreasonably enough to be on the receiving end of substantial costs orders when representing themselves in court. Instructing Hewetts (solicitors in Reading) to assist you can provide objective distance from your court claim, and minimise the risk of annoying the Court!

A litigant in person (being someone who represents themselves in court) who is also a solicitor has been hit with over £11,000 in indemnity costs after the claimant in a county court case complained that he kept changing his legal team.

Mr Bakhsh and two of his family members are defending a claim for possession from Wild Acres Rest Home Ltd in the Reading County Court. Mr Bakhsh was seeking to counter-sue the company and had been claiming approximately £2 million, but his allegations of fraud and harassment had been struck out.

The claimant Wild Acres applied for costs after a hearing at which Mr Bakhsh sought a further 14 days to produce a further amended defence form, to trim it down from the current 26-page document.

The defendant argued he was still paying rent and had always paid rent, so there was no prejudice to claimant in being given an extension of time. The claimant argued that the defendant had received the claim in December last year and had since made four different applications for extensions of time. 

District Judge Thomas Talbot-Ponsonby allowed the application but ordered that the defendants be disbarred from making any further application to vacate their defence and counter-claim.

The claimant argued costs should be awarded to Wild Acres for all the work they had done on the case so far, saying that Mr Bakhsh’s conduct 'has been pretty disruptive and caused a six-month delay and necessitated a hearing where one would not have been needed’. The claimant argued Bakhsh had used four different legal teams during the course of the proceedings already, and also argued that Mr Bakhsh was not a typical litigant in person, pointing out he is a solicitor.

Judge Talbot-Ponsonby ruled that costs should be awarded against Mr Bakhsh on an indemnity basis. 'There have been numerous applications to extend the time for this and not only that but there have been numerous changes of legal adviser for the defendants, often at last notice', the judge said. ‘I do think that the number of times in which the defendants’ legal advisers have changed so that the claimants had to start making arrangements all over again, with new legal advisers, is out of the norm and sufficiently far out of the norm and unreasonable to make costs on the indemnity basis.’

The judge said the total costs came to £11,039.84 and ordered Bakhsh to pay within 14 days. A case management conference in the possession claim and counter-claim was listed.

For advice on litigation and court matters please contact Oliver Kew at Hewetts Solicitors (Solicitors in Reading) at o.kew@hewetts.co.uk.

Published on 04/09/2024