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

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