Craig Ralph

Practice

Craig practices in all areas of the law of Costs. In addition he accepts instructions for Personal Injury and Contract matters involving significant costs issues

Profile

Craig accepts instructions on behalf of both Paying and Receiving parties in contentious and none contentious costs issues arising in both Civil and Criminal matters. Advocacy and Representation undertaken before all levels of Judiciary. Regularly briefed in appeals and test cases before the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal in matters involving influential costs questions.

Craig is registered for Public Access work; receiving instructions directly from members of the Bar and Costs professionals in relation to fee recovery in both Civil and Criminal matters.

Craig provides a wide range of CPD accredited seminars that can be tailored to the relevant seniority of fee earner.

Recommendations

Chambers UK 2010:

“Craig Ralph...is building himself a substantial practice”.

Chambers UK 2009:

“'...having a blossoming costs practice and skilled arguments have impressed opponents. His approachable manner and sound handling of costs cases has earned him recognition from clients, who rate him as “someone who is going places" '.

Significant Reported Cases:

Drew v Whitbread [2010] EWCA Civ 53. (led by Mark Friston): There was no rule that a failure to raise a point before the trial judge would preclude the raising of that point before the costs judge on a detailed assessment. In a multi-track case resulting in a costs order awarded on the standard basis, the costs judge on subsequent assessment was not entitled simply to rule that costs should be assessed on the fast track basis, but it was permissible to assess costs on the standard basis taking into account that the case should have been allocated to the fast track. This was a second appeal, heard by Waller LJ, Hooper LJ and Etherton LJ.

Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2010) Reported on Lawtel at LTL 13/1/2010 (CC (Leeds)) HHJ Behrens concerning the entitlement of solicitors in a subrogated loss claim to instruct solicitors in the Claimants name under the auspices of a CCFA that contends for a success fee when Claimant has a pre-existing “full indemnity”. The so called “Tree root” claims (permission to appeal pending).

Kingdom Thenga v Elsa Louise Quinn (2009) CA (Civ Div) (Wilson LJ ) concerning the interpretation of “final contested hearing” within the definition of a "trial" under CPR r.45.15(6)(b) for the purpose of determining the applicable percentage uplift on costs under CPR r.45.16 and the jurisdiction of a Judge to conduct a summary assessment, at a hearing, without the judge having heard any part of the substantive claim.

Shahida Parveen v Omar Farooq (2009) Reported on Lawtel at LTL 15/9/2009 ( CC (Liverpool)) HHJ Stewart Q.C. concerning the interpretation of CPR Pt 45 Section II in circumstances where in a claim for damages for personal injury settled with the general damages reduced to £875 to reflect an admission of 50 per cent contributory negligence, the claimant was only entitled to fixed costs by reference to the small claims track and not to fixed recoverable costs under CPR Pt 45 (II).

Multiple Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWHC 619 (TCC) concerning the correct approach to costs capping in group litigation (with Mark Friston)

Kilby v Gawith (2007) (CC (Liverpool)) HHJ Stewart Q.C. upheld on appeal (2008) EWCA Civ 812. 13 June 2008 Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Arden LJ, Dyson LJ concerning the interpretation of CPR 45.11 in a claim in which, despite having had the benefit of BTE insurance cover, the claimant had entered into a CFA to pursue her successful RTA action. Held: CPR 45.11 was not discretionary, meaning that the claimant was entitled to recover a success fee on predictable costs at the rate specified (12.5%). Any other outcome would depart from the overriding purpose of the rules, which was to provide a fixed level of remuneration.

Sitapuria v Khan [2007](CC (Liverpool) Reported on Lawtel at References: LTL 3/3/2008 (Unreported elsewhere) HHJ Stewart Q.C. A case which settles at the door of the court on the morning of the trial but before the trial has been called on and opened is not a case settled ‘at trial’ for the purposes of CPR r.45.15(6) and the winning representatives were only entitled to the lower success fee pursuant to CPR r.45.16 and CPR r.45.17(1)(c).

Recommendations

Chambers UK 2010:

“Craig Ralph...is building himself a substantial practice”.

Chambers UK 2009: