Court of Appeal threshold to remain unchanged – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 24th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, delay, news, oral hearings, statistics by sally

‘The Law Society has welcomed a government decision not to raise the threshold for permission to take cases to the Court of Appeal as part of a package of reforms to reduce delays.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 24th August 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Court of Appeal threshold to remain unchanged – Law Society’s Gazette

£13m claim made subject to costs management to ensure it is dealt with justly – Litigation Futures

Posted August 23rd, 2016 in case management, civil procedure rules, costs, news by sally

‘The chief Chancery master has ordered that a case be cost-managed after its £13m value was not disclosed in the claim form, finding that anyway there were “positive reasons why cost management is desirable”.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 22nd August 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on £13m claim made subject to costs management to ensure it is dealt with justly – Litigation Futures

Costs management – New Law Journal

Posted July 27th, 2016 in budgets, case management, civil procedure rules, costs, fees, news, time limits by sally

‘One of the most important aspects of the Jackson Reforms relates to costs budgeting and the use of Precedent H.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 26th July 2016

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on Costs management – New Law Journal

The fight against fraud – New Law Journal

‘“Fundamental dishonesty” and other measures, outlined by Denise Brosnan.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 26th July 2016

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on The fight against fraud – New Law Journal

Fees fi fo fum – New Law Journal

Posted July 27th, 2016 in advocacy, appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, courts, damages, fees, news by sally

‘David Wright discusses fixed advocacy fees.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 26th July 2016

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on Fees fi fo fum – New Law Journal

Relief from Sanctions Two Years after Denton: A Practical Views from the Bar – Littleton Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, news, sanctions by sally

‘James Bickford Smith discusses judicial approaches to procedural default two years after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Denton v White Ltd and another, Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others and Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and considers the challenges still facing practitioners and judges in dealing with applications for relief from sanctions.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 20th July 2016

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Comments Off on Relief from Sanctions Two Years after Denton: A Practical Views from the Bar – Littleton Chambers

Predictive coding – the current landscape – Hardwicke Chambers

‘Disclosure of documents is a significant driver of costs. Where the relevant documents are electronic, the problem is usually exacerbated. This is simply because the vast majority of documents are now created electronically and the proliferation and storage capacity of day-to-day IT equipment is such that the amount of information available may be enormous.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Predictive coding – the current landscape – Hardwicke Chambers

Changing the effect – Counsel

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, debts, dilapidations, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘Litigators beware – open conduct in litigation could change the effect of a Part 36 offer, warns Alan Tunkel.’

Full story

Counsel, July 2016

Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk

Comments Off on Changing the effect – Counsel

DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors – WLR Daily

DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)

‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’

WLR Daily, 4th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors – WLR Daily

Has the Claimant Beaten its Part 36 Offer? Perhaps not as Simple as it Looks – Zenith PI Blog

‘HHJ Pelling QC considered whether, when considering if a claimant had beaten its Part 36 offer, the court should simply compare the amount of the judgment with the offer the claimant had made or if account should be taken of the interest that had accrued in the period leading up to the trial.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 13th July 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Has the Claimant Beaten its Part 36 Offer? Perhaps not as Simple as it Looks – Zenith PI Blog

Wrong warrants? Issues in N325 compliance – Nearly Legal

‘GCN’s Jonathan Holt sets out below the background and detail to the recent emergence of a potential argument employable by those facing a warrant for possession, whether it be as the result of rent arrears or a failure to make mortgage payments.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 13th July 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Wrong warrants? Issues in N325 compliance – Nearly Legal

Credit where Creditor’s due – Tanfield Chambers

Posted July 12th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, news, probate, wills by sally

‘In Randall v Randall [2016] EWCA Civ 494, the Court of Appeal considered whether a creditor of a beneficiary of an estate had sufficient standing to bring a probate claim to challenge the validity of a purported will of the testatrix.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Credit where Creditor’s due – Tanfield Chambers

Fletchers claims “major victory” on interim payments of costs – Litigation Futures

‘Southport injury firm Fletchers claims to have secured the first judgment ordering defendants to make an interim costs payment based on the new version of the rules which came into force in April 2013.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 5th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Fletchers claims “major victory” on interim payments of costs – Litigation Futures

Claimant who only beat part 36 offer because of interest “not entitled to enhanced costs” – Litigation Futures

Posted July 5th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, costs, damages, interest, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer at trial because of the interest on the damages awarded through to judgment is not entitled to enhanced costs, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Claimant who only beat part 36 offer because of interest “not entitled to enhanced costs” – Litigation Futures

To recuse or not? – Ghadami v Bloomfield and others [2016] EWHC 1448(ch) – Zenith PI

‘Norris J has recently had to deal with an interesting case where he faced an application that he should recuse himself from a case. It also highlighted the negative impact a litigant in person can have on a case and administration of the Courts.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 29th June 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on To recuse or not? – Ghadami v Bloomfield and others [2016] EWHC 1448(ch) – Zenith PI

Part 36 uplift for beating offer includes contractual interest, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted June 30th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, interest, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Part 36 uplift for beating offer includes contractual interest, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Case Update: Judge expressing opinion on proportionality of incurred costs – Zenith PI Blog

‘In the recent case of Eil v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (15/06/16) the court was considering the costs position on a claim arising out of a sexual assault. Due to the medical evidence the Claimant limited the claim to £50,000. A budget was submitted by the Defendant for £26,000. The Claimant’s budget was £104,373, of which half had already been incurred.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 27th June 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Case Update: Judge expressing opinion on proportionality of incurred costs – Zenith PI Blog

Part 36 uplift for beating offer includes contractual interest, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Part 36 uplift for beating offer includes contractual interest, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Successful part 36 offer removes cap on provisional assessment costs, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted June 23rd, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A successful part 36 offer in a provisional assessment removes the £1,500 costs cap, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Successful part 36 offer removes cap on provisional assessment costs, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Crazy little thing called proportionality causes hammer to fall on Queen guitarist’s costs – Litigation Futures

‘Lawyers should tell clients in cases where costs significantly exceed damages that the new test of proportionality means they will receive “no more than a contribution” to those costs if they are successful, a costs judge has said.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 17th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Crazy little thing called proportionality causes hammer to fall on Queen guitarist’s costs – Litigation Futures