JH v CH & SAP (Costs: the Chorley principle, Litigants in person) [2020] EWCOP 63

Costs application where the respondent solicitor had carried out work in various guises for the P. The court ruled that the Chorley principle did not apply in this case.

A solicitor, who was an employee of a solicitor's firm, carried out work on behalf of the P.  There were 3 periods of time to be considered: the period during which the solicitor was acting on behalf of the P pursuant to the latter's original retainer of the firm of solicitors (Period 1); the period where the solicitor acted in person on behalf of the P (Period 2); and the period during which the solicitor acted as a litigant in person (Period 3).

The court ruled that the costs during Period 1 were not inter partes litigation costs but were a matter between the firm and their client or her estate. In relation to Period 2, the court disagreed with the solicitor that she was entitled to them all pursuant to the usual order in these proceedings, as set out in the CoP rules, further asserting that those costs should be assessed pursuant to the Chorley principle as she was employed by the solicitor's firm throughout that period while acting in the course of her employment. (The Chorley principle says: "a solicitor who acts for himself as a party to litigation can recover not only his out of pocket expenses but also his profit costs, but he cannot recover for anything which his acting in person has made unnecessary;"). The court could see no basis for ordering the solicitor's costs incurred during Period 2 to be assessed as if they were client/solicitor costs as between the P and the firm. As for Period 3, the solicitor could recover her costs as litigant in person.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii