Costs meeting, why?

[G7ivp]

The claimant 'A' lost the case they brought against defendant 'B' in the County Court (Multi-track) on every point. The judge found that B had consistently told the truth, whereas A... A had rejected two offers from B to settle out of court. A made an offer to settle while the Judge considered the case before the verdict was reached which B rejected (it was obvious A would loose by this time).

Now there's to be a meeting of solicitors to determine costs, for which they will no doubt charge adding even more to the total bill, and some haggling will take place but why?

I thought the looser paid the winner's costs, end of.

[atticus]

I t is hard to give an answer on the information provided. Have you asked your solicitor to explain?

[G7ivp]

I t is hard to give an answer on the information provided. Have you asked your solicitor to explain?

Not my case.

[atticus]

Are you sure it's a meeting and not a hearing? Meeting can be a cheaper way of resolving disagreements.

Very briefly, when costs are ordered to be paid on the standard basis, the loser is to pay those of the winner's costs that the court assesses are reasonable. It is not a blank cheque. And there may be issues if the costs claimed exceed the budget approved by the court.

But as you say, it's not your case.