Tom is a Senior Associate Solicitor and Coordinator of the Costs & Funding group at APIL, specialising in costs litigation since 2012. He has a strong understanding of costs related law, enabling him to articulate and apply this knowledge either in written pleadings or when advocating at court. Tom closely monitors the latest changes in the legal landscape, often providing the upper hand in his work.
He regularly prepares skeleton arguments on highly technical points of law and advocates in the High Court of Justice and Senior Courts Costs Office. Tom has significant experience of appeals, challenging judicial decisions. These appeal decisions have developed the law on several key issues such as costs management orders, switches in litigation funding, the provisional assessment procedure, CPR 36 (offers of settlement), fixed costs and qualified one way costs shifting (also referred to commonly as QOCS).
In addition to advocacy and preparation of documents, Tom endeavours to employ strategic thinking to his costs related advice so that his clients are well informed of the merits and limitations of the available strategies. His advice is user-friendly and succinct.
Tom achieved a 2.1 in his economics/business management degree from Manchester University and a commendation on the LPC. He is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.
Tom has been involved in the following cases, representing the Claimant:
- Ho v Adelekun  EWCA Civ 1988 and  EWCA Civ 517  UKSC 43
The Court of Appeal provided critical guidance on contracting out of the fixed costs regime and how parties should frame offers to settle in the future. The judgments of Lord Justice Newey and Lord Justice Males particularly focused on how Part 36 offers should be construed. In a second judgment, Lord Justice Newey and Lord Justice Males decided to follow the Court of Appeal’s previous decision in Howe v MIB in that the Defendant’s costs of the Appeal could be set off against the Claimant’s costs, despite having concerns over the correctness of the decision in Howe. As a result, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted. The claimant was successful in the Supreme Court as it was decided that defendants can only set off up to the amount of the damages and interest ordered; and because damages and interest are rarely ordered by the court (with most claims settling ‘out of court’ before trial) the ability of defendants to enforce costs orders is severely diminished.
- PME v The Scout Association  EWHC 3421 (QB)
Mr Justice Stewart decided the scope of a re-hearing before a Costs Judge of a Costs Officer’s decisions is restricted to the challenges brought before the Costs Officer. Pursuant to the judgment, it is not possible to have a re-hearing of all costs issues before a Costs Judge unless a party challenges all of the decisions made by the Costs Officer. This provided useful clarification to practitioners on the provisional assessment procedure.
- XDE v North Middlesex University Hospital Trust  EWHC 1482 (QB)  EWCA Civ 543
Mr Justice Jay decided, in agreement with Master Rowley at first instance, that the Claimant’s switch from legal aid to CFA and ATE funding was unreasonably made, and therefore the success fees and insurance premium were not recoverable from the Defendant. The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, however it was again decided that the switch in funding was not reasonable.
- Yirenkyi v Ministry of Defence  EWHC 3102 (QB)
At a costs management hearing, the Master sought to reserve the issue of hourly rates to a Costs Judge at detailed assessment. The Claimant appealed and Mr Justice Jacobs decided that the Master at a costs management hearing is tasked with approving total future sums for each phase. This decision provided certainty to parties early in the proceedings on the level of costs recovery and payment.
- Chartered Institute of Legal Executives
- Solicitors Regulation Authority
- Association of Personal Injury Lawyers