CJR Interim Report, Section K. Possible Reforms In Specific Areas, K19. Costs

Interim Report, Table of Contents

Civil Justice Reform - Interim Report

About CJR Citator

K19.4. Costs payable to a party's own lawyers

562.	The reforms touching on the third factor, the fee levels and fee charging practices of lawyers, can conveniently be considered first in relation to a party's own lawyers. Reforms in this area tend to proceed on two broad fronts. First, as an extension to the laisser-faire approach mentioned above, some of the changes aim at promoting transparency and efficiency in the legal services market. The aim is for the client to have better information as to the performance of his lawyers and less uncertainty as to his exposure on costs. Secondly, other reforms aim at greater regulation or at least guidance from the court as to acceptable fee levels.

(a)	Promoting transparency, client control and consumer choice

563.	The proposition that fee levels are regulated by market forces is correct but subject to qualification. While it is true that counsel and solicitors of high repute will generally command higher fees, being more in demand than their less fortunate counterparts, the market operates on the basis of very unevenly distributed and imperfect consumer knowledge of what any particular piece of litigation is going to cost and as to whether a better bargain may be offered by other lawyers.

564.	The uncertainty as to what litigation is going to cost reflects a general lack of reliable estimates as to likely costs and so an apparently open-ended exposure in a particular case. The difficulty in shopping around for better deals arises from a lack of information as to the fees and abilities of solicitors and counsel generally, exacerbated by professional rules inhibiting dissemination of certain relevant information.

565.	As noted by the ALRC, regular "players" will be far better equipped than infrequent litigants with information both as to likely overall costs and what competitors might charge :-

		"This type of information is already available to institutional consumers of legal services such as government departments and agencies, insurance companies and other large corporations who are repeat players. It assists them to compare, assess and negotiate fees, and to drive hard and effective bargains with lawyers. Major repeat purchasers of legal services are also in a position to seek tenders for legal work, or to establish their own inhouse legal offices." ^{(Note 497)}

566.	Even solicitors in smaller firms, not specialising in litigation, will face difficulty identifying competitive candidates for a brief to counsel, and will seldom stray beyond a small range of those regularly instructed. A lay person without any litigation experience would obviously be much worse off. The effect of such imperfect knowledge was noted by the ALRC :-

		"The lack of consumer information on the costs of legal services is a major factor inhibiting downward pressure on legal fees, and thus retarding access to justice. Consumers informed about the range of legal services available and the likely charges and time commitments are in a better position to negotiate fee agreements and make informed choices about legal advisors." ^{(Note 498)}

567.	In Australia, to help clients get a better idea of their own costs exposure, many States have taken steps to require lawyers to provide their clients with specified information as to costs. The ALRC recommended that this be a uniform requirement :-

		"Practice rules and legislation impose guidelines and restrictions on the charging practices of lawyers. In most jurisdictions, lawyers are required to disclose to clients the basis upon which costs are to be calculated, and in some States lawyers are required to provide an early estimate of costs. The Commission recommends that all States and Territories enact uniform legislation requiring lawyers (solicitors and barristers) to provide estimates of costs to their clients early, and on an ongoing basis." ^{(Note 499)}

568.	The Legal Profession Act 1987 of New South Wales provides one example of such legislation.

568.1	As part of a section indicating broadly the "rights of any client of a barrister or a solicitor", it is provided that :-

		"the client is to be given information about how a barrister or solicitor will charge for costs for legal services and an estimate of the likely cost of legal services." ^{(Note 500)}

More detailed obligations are then set out :-


	"(1)	A barrister or solicitor must disclose to a client ...... the basis of the costs of legal services to be provided to the client by the barrister or solicitor.

	(2)	The following matters are to be disclosed to the client:


		(a)	the amount of the costs, if known,

		(b)	if the amount of the costs is not known, the basis of calculating the costs,

		(c)	the billing arrangements,

		(d)	the client's rights under Division 6 in relation to a review of costs,

		(e)	the client's rights under Division 4 to receive a bill of costs,

		(f)	any other matter required to be disclosed by the regulations." ^{(Note 501)}


568.3	Such disclosure is usually to be made before the lawyer is retained ^{(Note 502)} "in writing and be expressed in clear plain language." ^{(Note 503)}

568.4	A failure to disclose the basis of costs is dealt with as follows :-


	"(1)	If a barrister or solicitor fails to make a disclosure to a client in accordance with this Division of the matters required to be disclosed by section 175 in relation to costs, the client need not pay the costs of the legal services unless the costs have been assessed under Division 6.

	(2)	A barrister or solicitor who fails to make a disclosure in accordance with this Division of the matters required to be disclosed by section 175 or 176 in relation to costs may not maintain proceedings for the recovery of the costs unless the costs have been assessed under Division 6.

	(3)	The costs of any assessment referred to in this section (including the costs of the costs assessor) are payable by the barrister or solicitor seeking to recover costs.

	(4)	Any failure referred to in this section does not of itself amount to a breach of this Act. However, the failure is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct." ^{(Note 504)}


568.5	Failure to provide an estimate of costs is treated as follows :-


	"(1)	A failure by a barrister or solicitor to make a disclosure ...... of an estimate of the likely amount of the costs of legal services to be provided by the barrister or solicitor (or any significant increase in the estimate) does not of itself amount to a breach of this Act.

	(2)	However, the failure is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct." ^{(Note 505)}


569.	A similar approach has been adopted in England and Wales. To improve clients' knowledge of what the proceedings have cost them to date and are likely to cost them in future, Lord Woolf recommended that :-


	*	"...... it should be a mandatory requirement for a solicitor to tell prospective clients how fees are to be calculated and what the overall costs might be; and to give reasonable notice when that estimate is likely to be exceeded and the reasons." ^{(Note 506)}

	*	"...... clients should be present at case management conferences and pre-trial reviews, where the judge will be informed about the level of costs incurred to date and the likely amount of future costs that would be incurred by the programme of work that he is setting at the conference." ^{(Note 507)}


570.	Armed with such information, Lord Woolf thought the client might exert better control over his lawyers' conduct of the proceedings and believed, perhaps optimistically, that such control might enable the client to :-


	"(a)	prevent major litigation strategies without instructions;

	(b)	eliminate unnecessary research and detail;

	(c)	control the hiring and use of barristers and experts;

	(d)	forbid interlocutory/discovery activities without prior approval;

	(e)	prevent convening of meetings when telephone calls will suffice;

	(f)	control the level of manning;

	(g)	agree the level and method of charging;

	(h)	emphasise that the case belongs to the client." ^(Note 508)


571.	In England and Wales, these recommendations have been implemented by the combined effect of two sets of provisions.

571.1	Under the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990, solicitors are obliged to give clients information about costs and other matters in accordance with a professional code made by the Council of the Law Society with the concurrence of the master of the Rolls. ^{(Note 509)}

571.2	The relevant code is presently the Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 ^{(Note 510)} which sets out in detail, the types of information that must be provided and kept current.

571.3	Under the CPR, duties are placed on solicitors to inform their clients in writing of adverse costs orders made in their clients' absence, whether made against the client ^{(Note 511)} or the solicitors personally. ^{(Note 512)}

572.	In Western Australia, the LRCWA has recommended changes to import a duty of disclosure both as to estimates of costs and adverse costs orders, backed up by sanctions, as follows ^{(Note 513)} :-


	"121.	The Legal Practitioners Act should be amended to impose an obligation on solicitors to advise their clients from time to time, and not less than once every 12 months, of an estimate of the likely cost of resolving the dispute.

	122.	Should a solicitor fail to comply with the obligation to advise a client of the likely cost of resolving a dispute, the Legal Practitioners Act should prohibit the solicitor from recovering fees from the client.

	149.	The Legal Practitioners Act should be amended to require solicitors to inform their clients of all costs orders made against the client and the reasons for making those orders.

	150.	Should a solicitor not comply with the obligation to advise a client of a costs order, the solicitor should be personally liable for those costs.

	151.	If a practitioner asserts that the reason for a default leading to a costs order to be paid immediately relates to the conduct of the client the practitioner should be required to prove to the court that notice of the assertion was given to the client."


573.	Readers are asked whether rules requiring similar disclosures to be made by solicitors and barristers to their clients should be adopted in Hong Kong: Proposal 52.

574.	Beyond being given proper information by his solicitor and barrister as to how much he is going to be charged in the litigation, the client should have access, if desired, to how much competing lawyers might charge. The ALRC recommends that :-

		"Legal professional associations, and legal services commissioners or ombudsmen should collect information on, and publish in a public, accessible form, the range of charge rates for lawyers in different specialities, firm sizes ...... and fees charged by barristers of varying experience." ^(Note 514)

575.	There is plainly a public interest in encouraging reasonable transparency and competition in the legal services market. Accordingly, where professional rules prevent dissemination of such information, the professional associations should be persuaded to change them. In default, consideration should be given to amending the Legal Practitioners Ordinance to allow and regulate publication of relevant information by the professional associations or in some other appropriate manner. Readers are consulted as to whether appropriate steps, including, if necessary, legislation, should be taken to enable lawyers' professional associations to provide to the public reasonable information as to lawyers' fees, claimed expertise and experience: Proposal 53.

(b)	Restricting fees by regulation

576.	As noted above, the court in Hong Kong presently possesses a limited power to intervene and to disallow fees deemed excessive on a solicitor and own client taxation, employing the criteria stated in HCR O 62 r 29. Reforms in other jurisdictions have sought to broaden the basis of such regulation in various ways.

577.	The ALRC describes the position in Australia as follows :-

		"All Australian jurisdictions regulate the contractual arrangements between lawyers and their clients. Legislation variously provides for lawyers to inform clients about potential costs and allows costs agreements to be cancelled or varied, or prevents enforcement of costs agreements which are unfair or unreasonable. In addition, professional practice standards provide that gross overcharging may amount to professional misconduct." ^{(Note 515)}

578.	Costs agreements are evidently common in Australia. Provision is often made by statute and regulation as to the contents of such agreements and, if the requirements are satisfied and the charges in accordance with the agreement's terms, the costs payable escape taxation or "assessment" by the court or cost assessors. Where a particular term of the costs agreement is itself unjust, it may be challenged. ^{(Note 516)}

579.	Procedures have also been introduced in some jurisdictions to make challenging one's lawyers' bill a more accessible option. For example, in New South Wales, the Chief Justice is empowered to appoint costs assessors (who are not officers of the court) with powers to assess bills. ^{(Note 517)} The client's right to dispute the bill (in cases not covered by costs agreements) is provided for in the following terms :-

		"...... if the client disputes the barrister's or solicitor's bill, or is ordered to pay costs in proceedings, the client may apply to have the bill or costs assessed by a costs assessor (Division 6). The client has no right to have a bill as to costs that are covered by a costs agreement assessed unless there is some inequality affecting the agreement as set out in Division 6." ^(Note 518)

580.	On an application by a client for an assessment, the assessor's powers are as follows :-

"Section 208A :-


		(1)	When considering an application relating to a bill of costs, the costs assessor must consider:


			(a)	whether or not it was reasonable to carry out the work to which the costs relate, and

			(b)	whether or not the work was carried out in a reasonable manner, and

			(c)	the fairness and reasonableness of the amount of the costs in relation to that work.


		(2)	A costs assessor is to determine the application by confirming the bill of costs or, if the assessor is satisfied that the disputed costs are unfair or unreasonable, by substituting for the amount of the costs an amount that, in his or her opinion, is a fair and reasonable amount.

		(3)	Any amount substituted for the amount of the costs may include an allowance for any fee paid or payable for the application by the applicant.

		(4)	If the barrister or solicitor is liable under section 182 (3) to pay the costs of the costs assessment (including the costs of the costs assessor), the costs assessor is to determine the amount of those costs. The costs incurred by the client are to be deducted from the amount payable under the bill of costs and the costs of the costs assessor are to be paid to the proper officer of the Supreme Court.


		Section 208B :-

		In assessing what is a fair and reasonable amount of costs, a costs assessor may have regard to any or all of the following matters:


		(a)	whether the barrister or solicitor complied with any relevant regulation, barristers rule, solicitors rule or joint rule,

		(b)	whether the barrister or solicitor disclosed the basis of the costs or an estimate of the costs under Division 2 and any disclosures made,

		(c)	any relevant advertisement as to the barrister's or solicitor's costs or skills,

		(d)	any relevant costs agreement (subject to section 208C),

		(e)	the skill, labour and responsibility displayed on the part of the barrister or solicitor responsible for the matter,

		(f)	the instructions and whether the work done was within the scope of the instructions,

		(g)	the complexity, novelty or difficulty of the matter,

		(h)	the quality of the work done,

		(i)	the place where and circumstances in which the legal services were provided,

		(j)	the time within which the work was required to be done."


581.	It will be noted that this approach to intervention does not start on the premise that all the costs billed are reasonable. Instead, the need for the work, how it was done and the "fairness and reasonableness of the amount of the costs in relation to that work" are all subject to assessment. This removes the high hurdles barring the way of the client under the present rules for solicitor and own client taxations, and appears a fairer standard to adopt. Readers are consulted as to whether similar procedures and standards should be adopted in respect of possible challenges by clients to their lawyers' bills: Proposal 54.

582.	A welcome development worth noting is the generation in some jurisdictions by professional societies of guidelines on reasonable levels of fees. In Western Australia, for instance, the Law Society's Conduct Rules provide :-

		"A practitioner shall charge no more than is reasonable by way of costs for his services having regard to the complexity of the matter, the time and skill involved, any scale costs that might be applicable and any agreements to costs between the practitioner and his client."^{(Note 519)}

583.	The ALRC has proposed in this context that a professional standard similar to that the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct be adopted. The American rule reads :-

"A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:


		*	the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

		*	the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

		*	the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

		*	the amount involved and the results obtained;

		*	the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

		*	the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

		*	the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and

		*	whether the fee is fixed or contingent." ^(Note 520)


(c)	Benchmark costs

584.	Another initiative aimed at restraining legal costs involves the compilation of "benchmark costs" comprising scales of fees for definable categories of work. Where such benchmarks can be devised, they may, as Sallmann and Wright point out, be put to various useful functions :-


	"*	to act as a yardstick by which clients can measure the fees charged by their lawyers,

	*	to provide guidance to lawyers when charging clients,

	*	where the lawyer and client have not entered a fee agreement, to provide the standard, on a taxation of the lawyer's bill, by which the lawyer's allowable charges can be assessed, and

	*	to provide the standard, on a taxation of costs as between party and party, of the costs that will be allowed to the successful party." ^{(Note 521)}


585.	One may add to the list the function of providing a broad guide for the court when making a summary assessment of costs, going some way towards meeting the criticism of inconsistency in such assessments.

586.	The attraction of having such a benchmark is plain. Lord Woolf recommended ^{(Note 522)} an attempt at compiling such a scale in relation to multi-track proceedings of a type having a limited and fairly constant procedure. He envisaged the court, with the assistance of user groups, building up over time figures indicating a standard or guideline cost or a range of costs for a class of proceedings. He saw cases brought by originating summons or simple judicial review proceedings as possible candidates for determining benchmark costs, these being cases where :-

		"The steps taken in the majority of cases are standard. Variations are limited to the number of affidavits on either side and the difficulty of the point involved." ^{(Note 523)}

	Once compiled and subsequently kept up to date, benchmark costs would provide guidance as to acceptable levels of costs both as between a solicitor and his own client and in party and party claims.

587.	Readers are consulted as to whether, in principle, steps should be taken to compile benchmark costs in Hong Kong for the uses of the type discussed: Proposal 55.

588.	It should however be emphasised that this proposal is highly tentative and contingent on it being possible to compile reasonably accurate and usable scale of benchmark costs. Experience has shown that this is a difficult task. It may be instructive to consider some attempts.

589.	In England and Wales in November 2000, the Senior Costs Judge reported that judges consulted expressed "widespread and understandable apprehension about the introduction of benchmark costs" and that nevertheless "those responding did suggest over 100 different procedures suitable for benchmarking". ^{(Note 524)}

590.	One consultation exercise by the English Supreme Court Costs Office ("SCCO") which took place between March and May 2001 was conducted by reference to a catalogue of case categories and related costs. These may be viewed at the website ^{(Note 525)} maintained by Mr L J West-Knights QC, who describes the SCCO's approach as follows:-

		"This is all about benchmark costs - the idea that, absent special circumstances, instead of assessing the costs of certain types of application/proceeding, there is a 'benchmark' figure which the winner will get. ...... Leaving aside the detail (i.e. amounts) there is some controversy over the whole idea, and its inter-relation with the (already eroding) concept of the indemnity principle. At the moment there are 20 types of proceedings which have been chosen for this. Figures are given (for consulting purposes) for 50 (FIFTY) different places in the jurisdiction. There are detailed files ...... setting out the assumptions and calculations for every single suggestion - 50 times 20.... They are also set out by district/circuit, and by type of application."

591.	As indicated above, the exercise produced benchmarks of considerable complexity.

591.1	The proposed list of proceedings thought to be suitable for benchmarking comprised 20 items including the following 14 items in non-family cases:-

		"Court of Appeal

		1	Appeals on quantum.

		2	Simple applications for security for costs.

		3	Applications by solicitors to come off the record.

		High Court

		4	Simple appeals from Masters/District Judges.

		Masters/District Judges

		5	Applications for an extension of time.

		6	Applications by solicitors to come off the record.

		7	Simple applications for security for costs.

		8	Simple applications without notice.

		Bankruptcy Registrars/District Judges

		9	Applications for substituted service of bankruptcy petitions.

		10	Bankruptcy hearings adjourned to another appointment.

		11	Dismissal of bankruptcy petition with costs payable by the debtor.

		Costs Judges and District Judges

		12	Applications to set aside default costs certificates.

		13	Part 8 applications under Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974.

		14	Detailed assessment proceedings between parties."


591.2	The assumptions and calculations for each set of benchmark costs ^{(Note 526)} are complex. They may be viewed at Appendix 5 to the consultation document. ^{(Note 527)}

592.	Meanwhile, the Court Service in England and Wales has issued guideline figures for the summary assessment of costs. These adopt a much simpler approach, suggesting :-


	*	Hourly charging rates for solicitors in a table differentiating among (i) court locations in the different regional circuits; and (ii) three "grades of fee-earners."

	*	Counsel's fees according to (i) the seniority of counsel (three levels of seniority among junior counsel being given - Queen's Counsel presumably not being expected to appear at hearings of the relevant type); (ii) whether the hearing is a 1 hour or 1/2 day hearing; and (iii) the civil division in which the hearing takes place (Queen's Bench, Chancery and Administrative Court).


593.	To take a few examples from these guidelines :-

593.1	The suggested hourly charging rate for a partner attending a hearing in Royal Courts of Justice in the City is £265, whereas that for a solicitor of less than 4 years post-qualification experience in Sheffield is £75.

593.2	The guideline for junior counsel of 10 or more years of call in the Queen's Bench Division is £500 for a one hour hearing and £1,000 for a half day hearing, the comparable sums in the Chancery Division being £650 and £1,200, and in the Administrative Court being £850 and £1,500 respectively. The comparable figures for juniors of up to 5 years' call are £220 and£385 (Queen's Bench); £250 and £475 (Chancery) respectively.^{(Note 528)}

594.	Much interest in benchmark costs is also being shown in Australia. This has been stimulated by a report prepared by Professor Phillip Williams, commissioned by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. ^{(Note 529)} The report represents yet another approach to benchmarking, described by the ALRC as follows :-

"The Williams report, ...... proposed a fixed costs scheme with charges fixed for work of varying complexity as at particular case events. The scheme is to determine party-party costs and, if there is no enforceable fee agreement, the solicitor-client costs. The proposed scheme envisages a judge deciding at an initial directions hearing the category of complexity for a particular case. For each category, costs are set and calculated by reference to stages in the process. For example, cost stages recommended for the Federal Court scale were


		*	instructions and close of pleadings

		*	close of pleadings and completion of discovery

		*	completion of discovery and fixing date for trial

		*	fixing date and start of trial

		*	during trial or at judgment.


		This categorisation allows litigants to know from the outset the amount they will receive towards their legal costs from the other party if they are successful. This is expected to create incentives for litigants to control litigation costs because each litigant will have to bear the full cost of any extra expenditure they incur. The set fees proposed allow proportionately higher costs for work done in the early stages of the litigation, with recoverable costs decreasing as the case continues in order to encourage early settlement. If the case goes to hearing a daily amount would be added." ^{(Note 530)}

595.	As Sallmann and Wright explain, ^{(Note 531)}the proposed Federal Court Scale was constructed on the basis of analysing data obtained from a survey of law firms, to obtain the following cost scales :-

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURT SCALE

WEIGHT OF MATTERS AT ISSUE

TIME OF DISPOSITION

Disposed of between instructions and the close of pleadings

Disposed of between close of pleadings and completion of discovery

Disposed of between completion of discovery and fixing of trial date

Disposed of between fixing of trial date and start of trial

Disposed of during trial or judgment

/caption>
596.	It is worth noting that such an "events based" approach to scale fees has considerable benefits over the "work item" approach to be found in currently prescribed scale fees used in the taxation of costs. This approach is pointed out and recommended by the ALRC :-

		"Under the proposal by Professor Williams, court fee scales will be changed from charges for particular items, such as photocopying or drafting documents to 'event based scales', with charges fixed for work at particular stages of the process. Such charges will be set at varying complexity for different case types. The new scale will not reward practices such as photocopying and can provide greater certainty about costs for clients. The Commission considers that the Williams report provides a useful model for the reform of fee scales, and has recommended the introduction of event based fee scales in the Federal Court and Family Court with some refined features." ^{(Note 532)}

As the foregoing discussion shows, many possible approaches to compiling benchmark costs exist, none of them free from difficulty or controversy. It is essential to have reliable information on costs upon which benchmark costs can be based. The absence of such data was a deficiency noted in the Lord Chancellor's Department's "Emerging Findings" assessment of the first two years of the Woolf reforms :-

		"A scoping study into the development of benchmark costs ^{(Note 533)} found that existing court systems held little useful data about costs and that the validity of any benchmark derived from existing data would be questionable." ^{(Note 534)}

	Further study is accordingly being undertaken. ^{(Note 535)}

598.	Despite such difficulties, the consensus appears to be that benchmark costs are well worth pursuing, provided one bears in mind the limitations inherent in such a scheme. This was emphasised by the Senior Costs Judge in the following terms :-

"There will undoubtedly be arguments to the effect that, variable circumstances may make it impossible to arrive at sensible assumptions on which to base the benchmark figure. It should be borne in mind that the benchmark figure is intended to reflect a reasonable figure for carrying out a piece of work with a limited and constant procedure. If circumstances in a particular case take the proceeding out of that category, the benchmark figure will not be apt, but it will still serve as a starting point from which the Judge may arrive at an appropriate figure given the particular circumstances of the case." ^{(Note 536)}

Notes

497	ALRC No 89, p 279 §4.66. <back>

498	ALRC No 89, p 279 §4.65. <back>

499	ALRC No 89, p 11. The varying disclosure requirements existing in all the States and in the ACT (but not in Northern Territory) are described at §§4.27 to 4.31. <back>

500	Section 174(1)(a). <back>

501	Section 175(1) and (2). <back>

502	Section 178(1). <back>

503	Section 179(1). <back>

504	Section 182. <back>

505	Section 183. <back>

506	WFR, p 84 §28. <back>

507	WFR, p 84 §29. <back>

508	WFR, p 84-85 §30. <back>

509	Rule 15. <back>

510	White Book Vol 2, 7C-170 et seq. <back>

511	CPR 44.2. <back>

512	CPR 44.14(3). <back>

513	WAR, Recommendations 121, 122 and 149 to 151. <back>

514	ALRC No 89, p 283 Recommendation 30. <back>

515	ALRC No 89, p 263. <back>

516	Eg, in New South Wales, see Legal Profession Act 1987, ss 184, 185, 208C and 208D. <back>

517	Legal Profession Act 1987, s 208S. <back>

518	Section 174(f). <back>

519	Quoted in ALRC No 89, p 271 n 108. <back>

520	Cited in ALRC No 89, p 272 §4.48. <back>

521	GTC p 156. <back>

522	WFR, p 86 §35-37. <back>

523	WFR, p 86 §36. <back>

524	< http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/notices/scco/gscj_des.htm> <back>

525	< http://www.lawonline.cc/locked/cpr/scco/bm.htm> <back>

526	Listed in Appendix 6 to the consultation document, but not shown here. <back>

527	< http://www.lawonline.cc/locked/cpr/scco/bm.htm> <back>

528	The figures given for the Administrative Court appear to be erroneous: £650 for 1 hour and £500 for 1/2 day. <back>

529	P Williams et al Report of the review of scales of legal professional fees in federal jurisdiction A-G's Dept (Cth) Canberra 1998. <back>

530	ALRC No 89, p 285-6 §§4.88-4.89. <back>

531	GTC p 159-160. <back>

532	ALRC No 89, p 12. <back>

533	JSB Journal 2000, Case Management on the Road Ahead, Issue 10.4 <back>

534	EF §7.11. <back>

535	EF §7.12. <back>

536	< http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/notices/scco/gscj_des.htm> Senior Costs Judge, 24 November 2000. <back>

Web Accessibility Conformance