Below is an extract from the Courts Service website and may assist in explaining about costs. Specifically why if you are awarded costs in a successful action, you may still have additional costs to pay to your solicitor.
People confuse their solicitors with some kind of "treasure chest" in a way they don't with other professionals. If you have your accountant do your accounts, you expect to pay. If you engage a solicitor to represent you in a Court action, you don't expect to pay them - you expect someone else to. In many cases, where your client, the Plaintiff, successfully sues a Defendant and obtains an order for costs and those costs are easily recoverable from the Defendant, it may well be that those costs paid cover all the costs associated with the case. In many cases, they don't or while an Order has been made, the Defendant cannot pay them.
The client is always primarily responsible for all their Solicitors costs - they may get an indemnity from the Defendant for some or all of those costs which may offset the responsibility but that responsibility is always there.
I think the whole Personal Injuries Costs Syndrome was something that skewed people’s logic/rational way of thinking. I don’t do much P I work – I know that there are lots of perfectly legitimate claimants out there ( I act for some of them) but equally I’ve come across many people who believe they have an entitlement to a windfall for any form of minor inconvenience/bruising, and they inflate and exaggerate their claim without any shame. Add that to the Greedy Lawyers who actively encouraged claims (Army Deafness being the classic) and you can understand why clients don’t think going to Court should ever cost them anything. Contrast that though with a Boundary Dispute between neighbours ( possibly your worst possible case) both of whom are behaving badly and you can more clearly understand why ( a) they may both be ordered to pay their own costs or (b) a proportion of the other sides.
The party claiming costs - usually the successful Plaintiff or Defendant, must demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Taxing Master that such costs as are incurred were proper and reasonable in all the circumstances. The Taxing Master is guided by wide experience, gained by a professional background as a solicitor and in taxing costs.
Categories of costs
There are two main categories of costs;
(i) Party and Party Costs, and
(ii) Solicitor and Client Costs
Party and Party costs:
Party and Party costs cover all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by one party for the purposes of the relevant proceedings which the other side is obliged to pay. There may be costs in an action that are not allowable as Party and Party costs. The party claiming costs must justify why they were incurred and why those costs should be allowed. The Party and Party Costs may not cover the whole of the costs incurred in an action and the courts have held that:-
In costs between party and party one does not get full indemnity for costs incurred against the other. The principle to be considered in relation to party and party costs is that you are bound in the conduct of your case to have regard to the fact that your adversary may in the end have to pay your costs. You cannot indulge in a 'luxury of payment'.
All such costs, charges and expenses which appear to the Taxing Master to be necessary and proper in pursuit of the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of a person are essentially allowable costs.
Solicitor and client costs:
Solicitor and client costs are those costs that a client is obliged to pay his solicitor which are not recoverable under Party and Party costs.
The courts have held that the following distinction is made between Party and Party and Solicitor and Client costs in an action:-
"The costs of the Plaintiff as against the party do not mean all the costs he has incurred but all the costs he has incurred by the act of the defendant. That is the difference between party and party and solicitor and client costs - e.g.. it may be reasonable to have several consultations but it does not follow he is to get them all against the party."
Bills of costs
Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides for charges to clients. Under these provisions a solicitor should furnish a detailed statement of all the legal costs to his client. This statement of costs should contain:-
(a) a summary of the legal services provided;
(b) the total amount of damages received or other monies recovered;
(c) details of all the charges incurred and the nature of same.
Generally at the conclusion of the business or by arrangement with the client the solicitor will produce a detailed statement of costs and this is known as a Bill of Costs.
Generally, before making any payment for costs, the client has a right to have his costs taxed. At the conclusion of the taxation there is a duty imposed upon the amount of costs allowed by the Taxing Master - fees are set out in the Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order. However, in Solicitor and Client taxations, if more than one sixth of the amount claimed is disallowed, the client may not be liable for this duty, otherwise this duty is payable by the Solicitor who presents the Bill of Costs.
Normally you write so clearly - I gave up about half way through. How is an ordinary person supposed to understand how much they will have to pay with that? No wonder we have so many people on AAM confused about fees