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

Economic complexity: CAT vs High Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

‘One of the advantages of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is said to be the fact that its three-member panel typically includes an economist. But is that really such a big advantage over the High Court?’

Full story

Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 9th June 2016

Source: www.competitionbulletin.com

Comments Off on Economic complexity: CAT vs High Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

Post-Jackson proportionality rule can prevent full recovery of ‘reasonable’ costs, says senior judge – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 8th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, costs, damages, fees, news, privacy, proportionality by sally

‘The new rules limiting the recovery of the costs of civil court action to a “proportionate” amount may prevent successful parties from recovering costs that would otherwise have been reasonable, a senior costs judge has confirmed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Post-Jackson proportionality rule can prevent full recovery of ‘reasonable’ costs, says senior judge – OUT-LAW.com

Staking a claim – New Law Journal

‘Kerry Underwood concludes his 60th birthday tour with a master class on small claims, portals & Pt 36.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 3rd June 2016

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on Staking a claim – New Law Journal

Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another – WLR Daily

Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another [2016] EWCA Civ 465

‘Where the County Court has made a decision on appeal from a district judge or deputy district judge the position as to an appeal from the County Court’s decision is as follows. (i) If the County Court has heard the appeal and ruled on the issues determined by the district judge (including the validity or otherwise of the claims, the relief to be granted and the costs of the hearing before the district judge) then, by virtue of article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, any appeal will lie only to the Court of Appeal. Permission must be sought from the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR r 52.13, and the second appeal test, set out in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, will apply. (ii) In respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court, any appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to article 5 of the 2000 Order, but the second appeal test will not apply. (iii) It would be open to the County Court judge to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court and the normal test for permission will apply. It would also be open to the Court of Appeal to grant permission applying the same test. (iv) If there has not been what can properly be regarded as a hearing of the appeal, any appeal (which is almost certainly to be one on costs) is to the High Court judge and the normal test will apply (paras 34, 41–42, 44–47, 51, 52, 54, 55).’

WLR Daily, 24th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another – WLR Daily

Regina (Bar Standards Board) v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court – WLR Daily

Regina (Bar Standards Board) v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court [2016] EWCA Civ 478

‘The Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court, having determined disciplinary proceedings in favour of a non-practising barrister who had represented herself at the hearing, ordered the Bar Standards Board to pay her costs and appointed an assessor to determine the amount. Treating the Civil Procedure Rules as persuasive, the assessor took the view that by reason of her status as a barrister and the fact that she had conducted the proceedings herself, the barrister had established financial loss sufficient to allow recovery of two thirds of the rate which a solicitor would have charged had CPR r 48.6 applied. He therefore assessed her costs in the sum of £27,521·50 for 166 hours of work, a figure not in dispute. The award included the costs of her time at the rate of £120 per hour. The board claimed judicial review of that decision, contending that the barrister was entitled to no more than that to which a litigant in person would have been entitled, and that the expenditure of her time and skill did not amount to financial loss within the meaning of CPR r 48.6(4)(a). The Divisional Court, allowing the claim in part, held that the correct basis of assessing costs was in accordance with regulation 31 of the board’s Disciplinary Tribunals Regulations 2009 as amended, namely, to award such costs as the tribunal thought fit, the Civil Procedure Rules being neither applicable nor persuasive, and the financial loss of a barrister acting in person defending disciplinary proceedings included the expenditure of the barrister’s own professional skill. The court therefore held that the barrister was entitled to the costs represented by her expenditure of professional skill in successfully defending the charges brought against her. The court concluded that an hourly rate of £120 was too high since she had not been practising at the time, and accordingly substituted an award of costs calculated at £60 per hour. The court further ordered the barrister, as an interested party in the proceedings,to pay 60% of the board’s costs of the judicial review proceedings.’

WLR Daily, 11th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Bar Standards Board) v Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court – WLR Daily

Rule committee rejects standalone introduction of fixed fees for costs-only proceedings – Litigation Futures

Posted June 2nd, 2016 in civil procedure rules, costs, fees, insurance, legal profession, news by sally

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has deflected a call by the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) to introduce fixed costs in costs-only proceedings, saying that the issue should form part of the wider reform agenda.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 2nd June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Rule committee rejects standalone introduction of fixed fees for costs-only proceedings – Litigation Futures

Government admits defeat in bid to introduce fixed costs in clinical negligence on 1 October – Litigation Futures

‘The government has admitted that it will not be able to introduce fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence cases on 1 October as planned.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 31st May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Government admits defeat in bid to introduce fixed costs in clinical negligence on 1 October – Litigation Futures

Rule committee “sympathetic” with PIBA complaints about solicitors using unregistered barristers in court – Litigation Futures

‘The government has been asked to look at changing the Civil Procedure Rules to prevent solicitors from employing unregistered barristers as agents to represent clients in court.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Rule committee “sympathetic” with PIBA complaints about solicitors using unregistered barristers in court – Litigation Futures

Court rules on QOCS protection in appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 31st, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘Costs protection will apply to first appeals in personal injury proceedings, the High Court has ruled in a judgment intended to clear up an area of confusion.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 30th May 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Court rules on QOCS protection in appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

Senior judges oppose singling out clin neg for fixed costs as consultation nears – Litigation Futures

‘The senior judiciary agrees with Lord Justice Jackson that fixed recoverable costs should not be introduced in clinical negligence cases in isolation, but as part of their extension across the entire fast-track and ‘lower’ end of the multi-track, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Senior judges oppose singling out clin neg for fixed costs as consultation nears – Litigation Futures

High Court rejects defendant’s bid to withdraw admission of liability – Litigation Futures

‘A defendant cannot withdraw an admission of liability because the value of a claim has increased, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court rejects defendant’s bid to withdraw admission of liability – Litigation Futures

Over the Border – Zenith PI Blog

‘In the recent cases of Cook v Virgin Media Ltd and McNeil v Tesco Plc [2016] 1WLR 1672, the Court of Appeal had to consider two cases raising a virtually identical issue. Each case related to a Scottish claimant claiming for personal injuries sustained in Scotland against Defendants who had registered offices in England and Wales. Mr Cook claimed that he suffered personal injury in a tripping accident in East Kilbride as a result of the negligence of Virgin Media. Virgin Media admitted liability. The claim was brought through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. In their defence Virgin Media said that the claim would be more appropriately dealt with in Scotland. In the second case Mr McNeil had suffered injuries in a Tesco store in Glasgow. He too claimed putting a claim through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. Tesco denied liability and said that the claim should have been brought in Scotland. Both these cases were shunted to Carlisle County Court. (It is perhaps a pity that the old Berwick-upon-Tweed County Court has long closed its doors, since it might have been an ideal venue.)’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 17th May 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Over the Border – Zenith PI Blog

Increasing costs budget – what constitutes “significant development” – Zenith PI Blog

Posted May 16th, 2016 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, expert witnesses, news by sally

‘In Churchill v Boot 2016 (QBD 22/04/2016) permission to appeal against a master’s order refusing permission to amend a cost budget was refused.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 13th May 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Increasing costs budget – what constitutes “significant development” – Zenith PI Blog

High Court: no “windfall” in allowing barrister to claim fast-track trial advocacy fee – Litigation Futures

‘Allowing a claimant’s barrister to recover a trial advocacy fee in a fast-track personal injury case, settled on the morning of the hearing, “hardly amounts to a windfall”, a High Court judge has said.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 3rd May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court: no “windfall” in allowing barrister to claim fast-track trial advocacy fee – Litigation Futures