The million-dollar question that the client poses to the lawyer does not necessarily entertain a million-dollar reply. The question – the confidant client then will ask, “won’t the other side pay for your legal fees when they lose?” (a fact which all client deem)
Clients, quite rightly, are often confused as to party-to-party cost and solicitor-client costs (which is actually legal fees). There are other types of costs awarded but we shall not get into that here.
Party-to-party cost is costs awarded to a party, usually the winning party, payable by the losing party. Unless otherwise directed (which is usually immediate/forthwith), costs are payable at the end of the proceedings.
Solicitor-client the latter is costs/legal fees as between the solicitor and client.
Both costs, if not agreed, are awarded pursuant to the Rules of the High Court (legislation which is usually “under-nourished”) and applied vide taxation proceeding. If Fees are Agreed, then the lawyer can commence legal proceedings for recovery.
It is common (in most jurisdictions), that party-to-party cost is significantly lesser in comparison to solicitor-client costs.
The rational being that whereas the losing party ought to, in all circumstances, be penalised to pay cost, the losing party has got no place to play in the appointment of an “expensive barrister” in contrast to an “inexpensive” counsel. Therefore, if a party wishes to appoint a barrister on a high retainer, that shall be that client’s prerogative. Nevertheless, the Court shall only award what is proper (legislated) and the fees, commonly referred to “getting-up fees” reflecting various matters including seniority of the counsel in question and subject matter (not counsel’s) expertise.
The bottom line, the litigant seldom receives 100% compensation of costs.
There are various repercussions to this premise which shall be examined on another occasion.
