Like Déjà Vu, All Over Again

It is no surprise at all that one of the first queries of the New Year involves the, seemingly, never ending saga of the “stand alone breach”. Here is a previous consideration of the point from 2016.

We had an equally unequivocal finding to that quoted in the above link, in support of our and Crimeline’s interpretation of contract, in May last year. It  even included the following “feedback” to the LAA:

My interpretation of 10.70 is that if the Breach proceedings are in the Court and no other matter is being heard on that day, then there is separate standard fee. My interpretation is that the words “if the defendant is before the Court for no other reasons…” means exactly that. If a hearing on a particular date relates only to Breach then the defendant is not in front of the Court of any other reasons. Solicitors in this situation should not be punished financially on a harsh interpretation of the Regulations.

This is not binding and we make no suggestion that it is. On the other hand the LAA happily utilise contrary ICA decisions in support of their nil assessments.

Today’s caller rang after a colleague from another firm confirmed a nil assessment and a Contract Notice, for, essentially, following the above feedback. My client, however, is going to continue to bill stand-alone breaches.

About Author: SP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *