Robert Marven KC

Robert is one of the leading specialists in all areas of costs law and he has appeared in many of the most important cases. Recently Robert has appeared in cases which establish new principles on the validity of funding agreements in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Paccar; the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order payment of funding and other costs on settlement; a beneficiary’s entitlement to challenge the costs of an executor; a defendant’s entitlement to disclosure of claimants’ funding agreements in group litigation.

Robert is often brought into major commercial litigation as well as many of the largest group claims and collective proceedings, to advise and make submissions on costs issues. He is also appearing in ongoing test litigation about solicitors’ rights to made deductions from client damages.

Robert represents a wide range of clients including PLCs and public bodies, solicitors, claims management companies and individuals. He advises and represents many if not most of the leading commercial litigation funders and legal expenses insurers.

Robert also has an outstanding drafting and advisory practice. Many of his greatest successes are disputes which never happened as a result of his advice and drafting. He provides strategic advice on matters of commercial importance to insurers, solicitors and others involved with the management and funding of litigation. He advises on complex funding solutions for group litigation, collective proceedings and major commercial disputes. Robert advises on and drafts all forms of funding agreements, retainers such as conditional fee and damages-based agreements, and legal expenses insurance policies.

Robert is an experienced mediator, and he has an impressive track record of facilitating settlements in even the most acrimonious costs disputes.

Featured Cases

Litigation Funding

• Omni Bridgway v Bugsby Property LLC [2024] Costs LR 405. The first post-Paccar High Court case in which a funded claimant is refusing to pay its litigation funder on the basis that the funding agreement is an unenforceable damages-based agreement. Robert acts for the funder which has successfully obtained an injunction to preserve the proceeds of the litigation, and has also successfully resisted the claimant’s application for fortification of its cross-undertaking in damages.
• Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd [2024] CAT 47. Robert appeared for the funders and legal expenses insurers in this landmark Competition Appeal Tribunal decision which establishes that the CAT has jurisdiction to order payment to of funding and other costs on partial settlement, where the collective proceedings had settled against one defendant but continued against many other defendants.
• Chapelgate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Ltd v Money [2020] 1 WLR 1751. Court of Appeal decision which holds that the ‘Arkin cap’ ie. the cap on a commercial funder’s liability for adverse costs to the level of funding provided, is not a rule that applies automatically; and the court can take into account other matters and not limit the funder’s liability to the amount of funding.

Solicitor-client disputes

• Kenig v Thomson Snell and Passmore LLP [2024] 1 WLR 3767. Important Court of Appeal decision which holds that beneficiaries are entitled to raise challenges to solicitors’ costs under Solicitors Act 1974 section 71(3), even though it would not be open to the trustee or executor to raise those challenges.
• Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2023] 1 WLR 1071. Landmark Court of Appeal decision which challenges fundamentally the business model of firms who bring expensive High Court litigation to assess modest solicitors’ bills. Robert acted for the solicitor who was successful in upholding the principle that the client pays the costs of the assessment.
• Hanley v JC&A Solicitors [2019] PNLR 5. High Court appeal decision on the extent of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to order solicitors to give ‘delivery up’ to a former client of documents on the file. Robert acted for the solicitors who successfully established the principle that there was no jurisdiction to order delivery up of documents over which the solicitor rather than the client has proprietorial rights.
• Parvez v Mooney Everett Solicitors Ltd [2018] 1 COSTS LO 125. High Court appeal decision in which Robert acted for the successful solicitors in establishing the principle that the solicitors were entitled to determine the form and content of the statutory bill which they delivered; the client could not require delivery of a particular ‘bill’ which already existed on the solicitors’ file.
• Harrison v Eversheds LLP [2017] 5 COSTS LR 931. High Court appeal decision on the level of cost a client should be required to pay in circumstances where the costs were very substantially higher than the estimate which the solicitors had given. It was held that that it was wrong in principle for the solicitors to rely on the increase in the other side’s costs in attempting to justify exceeding their estimate.

Costs Recovery

• St James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB). Appeal which establishes that where solicitors charge a client costs that are significantly in excess of the budget approved by the court for payment by the opponent, it can be concluded that these costs are ‘unusual’, so that the client is not liable to pay them, without the need scrutinise individual items of costs.
• AKC v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2022] 1 WLR 946. Court of Appeal decision which establishes the level of information that a receiving party’s solicitor is required to provide in an inter partes electronic bill of costs served on the paying party. Robert acted for the successful appellant.
• Surrey v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] 1 WLR 5831. Court of Appeal decision which establishes the correct approach to the recoverable costs for publicly funded claimants transferring to CFA plus ATE funding.
• Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (No 2) [2017] 1 WLR 1249. Supreme Court decision on establishing the correct interpretation of the LASPO transitional provisions in respect of costs claimed on an appeal.
• Sulaman v Axa and Direct Line [2010] CP REP 19, [2010] 3 COSTS LR 391. Court of Appeal case setting out principles applicable to reduction to costs of successful defendant who had lied.
• The Accident Line Protect test cases [2009] 1 WLR 1731, [2009] 4 ALL ER 526. Court of Appeal test case on whether CFA regulations obliged solicitors acting under Law Society’s Accident Line scheme to declare an interest in recommending the scheme’s ATE policy.
• Crane v Canons Leisure Centre [2008] 1 WLR 2549, [2008] 2 ALL ER 931. Court of Appeal case addressing the distinction between disbursements and out-sourced profit costs, and on the recoverability of success fees in detailed assessment proceedings.

Civil Procedure

• Tabbitt v Clark [2023] Costs LR 981, [2024] RTR 3. Court of Appeal decision addressing the correct approach to potential amendments to the CPR, here the QOCS rules. A claimant is not entitled to guard against anticipated amendments by seeking a pre-amendment declaration based on the unamended rules.
• JLE (A Child) v Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] 1 WLR 6498. High Court appeal setting out the correct approach to deciding whether it was ‘unjust’ to order the usual consequences in CPR r 36.17(4) when a claimant betters her own Part 36 offer.
• JC and A Solicitors Ltd v Iqbal [2017] CP REP 32, [2017] PIQR P18. Court of Appeal decision which establishes that costs paid under a fixed costs regime are not repayable where a claim is later abandoned.
• Halborg v EMW Law LLP [2018] 1 WLR 52; Court of Appeal decision which establishes that Limited Liability Partnerships of solicitors are not litigants in person, for the purposes of the litigant in person costs rules in CPR r 46.5.
• Redfern v Corby Borough Council [2014] EWHC 4526 (QB). One of the first appeal decisions on the costs budgeting regime. The court considered how past costs should be taken into account when revising and approving a budget for future costs. The court also considered how the new definition of proportionality applies to costs budgeting.
• Days Healthcare UK Ltd v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd and others [2006] 4 ALL ER 233, [2007] CP REP 1, [2006] 5 COSTS LR 788. Still the leading case on the Court’s power to debar a party in breach of court orders from participating further in detailed assessment proceedings.