Claim against MIB does not have protection of QOCS, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘A claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) by the victim of an accident in France does not have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.

Full story

Litigation Futures, 26th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Claim against MIB does not have protection of QOCS, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

No escape from dishonesty hearing for claimant who discontinued – Litigation Futures

Posted April 27th, 2016 in costs, fraud, news, personal injuries, proportionality by sally

‘A personal injury claimant cannot escape a fundamental dishonesty hearing by serving a notice of discontinuance, a circuit judge has held.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on No escape from dishonesty hearing for claimant who discontinued – Litigation Futures

Can lenders avoid cost budgeting? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in banking, costs, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Is it possible for lenders to avoid the courts’ enthusiasm for managing costs of litigation?’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 20th April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Can lenders avoid cost budgeting? – Tanfield Chambers

Jackson proposes decoupling new bill of costs from J-Codes in bid to break “deadlock” – Litigation Futures

Posted April 25th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, codes of practice, costs, delay, electronic filing, news by sally

‘The new format bill of costs developed by the Hutton committee needs to be brought into use – perhaps from October 2017 – but should be decoupled from the J-Codes to make it more palatable to the profession, Lord Justice Jackson said last week in a bid to restart momentum towards one of the unfinished elements of his reforms.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 25th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Jackson proposes decoupling new bill of costs from J-Codes in bid to break “deadlock” – Litigation Futures

Asylum and immigration court fees set to rise by over 500% – The Guardian

‘Asylum and immigration tribunal fees are set to increase by more than 500% in order to help pay off the Ministry of Justice’s funding deficit.’

Full story

The Guardian, 21st April 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off on Asylum and immigration court fees set to rise by over 500% – The Guardian

CA: judge wrong to move hire costs dispute from RTA process to small claims court – Litigation Futures

Posted April 25th, 2016 in appeals, costs, damages, fees, insurance, news, road traffic, small claims by sally

‘A district judge was wrong to move a dispute over hire car costs from stage 3 of the RTA protocol to the small claims court, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 22nd April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on CA: judge wrong to move hire costs dispute from RTA process to small claims court – Litigation Futures

Footballer found guilty of contempt of court – Attorney General’s Office

‘A semi-professional footballer who was caught tweeting about playing football 24 hours after making a dishonest insurance claim for whiplash today admitted contempt of court.’

Full press release

Attorney General’s Office, 15th April 2016

Source: www.gov.uk/ago

Comments Off on Footballer found guilty of contempt of court – Attorney General’s Office

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, indemnities, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365

‘The claimant succeeded in her claim against the defendant for medical negligence in the management of her birth, during which she suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury as a result of shoulder dystocia. The claimant had earlier made a CPR Pt 36 offer to settle liability on the basis that she received 65% of the damages that would accrue on a 100% basis, which had been rejected by the defendant. The judge upheld the first allegation under the claim, namely that the defendant had been negligent in not performing a caesarean section during the claimant’s delivery and held that as she had succeeded in establishing that her injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, she was accordingly entitled to 100% of her claimed damages even though she had been unsuccessful in other specific allegations, including a freestanding second limb of the claim that the delivery itself was negligently managed. On the issue of costs, the claimant contended that because of the defendant’s refusal to accept the Part 36 offer of settlement which had been bettered by the claimant, the consequences of what was then CPR r 36.14(3) (now CPR r 36.17, as amended by The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules (SI 2014/3299), reg 7, Sch 1) applied and as a result the court was unable to make an issues-based order, Part 36 comprising as it did an all or nothing self-contained regime; and that she should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced “Part 36 rate” plus the enhancements specified in Part 36.14(3)(a) and (d). The defendant submitted that the normal cost consequences of CPR r 36.14(3) should be disapplied because, by reference to CPR r 36.14(4), in the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply them; that CPR Part 36 did not prevent the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order to reflect the fact that the claimant failed in respect of the second allegation, which was a discrete and independent allegation and that such an order was appropriate; and that therefore the claimant’s costs referable to the first allegation should be awarded with the CPR Part 36 enhancements but not those in respect of the unsuccessful second allegation. The judge held that (a) the engagement of the CPR Pt 36 cost consequences did not preclude the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order and the court had a discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding that the claimant was a successful claimant; and (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order, under which the claimant would not recover her costs of the second allegation. He ordered that the claimant should recover her damages to be assessed with the 10% addition required by CPR r 36.14(3)(d), plus her costs, excluding those referable to the second allegation and that those costs, incurred after 22 October 2014, were to be assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR r 36.14(3)(d). The claimant appealed on the grounds that (a) on the true construction of Part 36, the discretion of the court under CPR r 36.14(3) was restricted to the enhancements to which a successful claimant was normally entitled in respect of damages, costs and interest, that the court did not have power under Part 36 to deprive a party of part of its costs on the basis that it had failed to establish part of its claim and that Part 36 excluded the normal discretion of the court to make an issues-based or proportionate costs order; (b) alternatively, that a successful claimant could only be deprived of her costs if it was shown that it would be unjust for her to recover all her costs; and (c) that the judge had erred in law in deciding that he could and should deprive the claimant of her costs attributable to the second allegation.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

CA says huge solicitor-own client costs assessment can be held in private – Litigation Futures

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, news, private hearings, privilege, solicitors by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to conduct a solicitor-own client assessment in private so as to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), even though the client had given a waiver to enable international law firm Dechert to defend its multi-million pound bills.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 20th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on CA says huge solicitor-own client costs assessment can be held in private – Litigation Futures

Court heaps landmark contempt sentence on whiplash cheat – Litigation Futures

‘A semi-professional footballer who brought a fake whiplash claim has suffered twice over after a four-month suspended sentence for contempt was heaped on an £11,000 costs order for bringing a fundamentally dishonest claim.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Court heaps landmark contempt sentence on whiplash cheat – Litigation Futures

PI victim gets 100% costs – despite failing with one allegation – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant should be awarded full costs of bringing her case despite losing on one of the issues.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 15th April 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on PI victim gets 100% costs – despite failing with one allegation – Law Society’s Gazette

Court of Appeal overturns issues-based part 36 offer – Litigation Futures

‘Judges can make issues-based costs orders under part 36 but only if it is unjust to deprive a successful claimant of all or part of their costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning such an order.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 15th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Court of Appeal overturns issues-based part 36 offer – Litigation Futures

Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, law reports, striking out, Supreme Court by sally

Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch)

‘The judge dismissed the defendants’ application to strike out the claimants’ claim, a decision which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the claimants’ appeal from that decision and ordered that the defendants pay the claimants’ costs in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The costs judge subsequently refused the defendants’ application to stay the immediate detailed assessment of those costs. The defendants appealed from that decision on the ground that, by CPR r 47.1, the costs of proceedings could not be subject to detailed assessment until the proceedings were concluded, unless the appellate court had expressly ordered the costs to be assessed immediately, which it had not.’

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

An Approach to Fundamental Dishonesty in the Claimant’s Absence – Zenith PI Blog

Posted April 12th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news by sally

‘A notable and well-known exception to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) is that a Claimant whose claim is found to be “fundamentally dishonest” loses the protection of the QOCS rules.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 11th April 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on An Approach to Fundamental Dishonesty in the Claimant’s Absence – Zenith PI Blog

Global firm must pay £118k over negligent advice – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 8th, 2016 in contracts, costs, damages, documents, employment, law firms, negligence, news, standards by tracey

‘A High Court judge has ordered global firm King & Wood Mallesons to pay damages over negligent advice it gave to a commodities business intelligence firm – although they were only 5% of the sum claimed.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 7th April 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Global firm must pay £118k over negligent advice – Law Society’s Gazette

Court lenient over seven-day delay in filing costs budget – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 7th, 2016 in appeals, budgets, costs, delay, law firms, news by sally

‘A firm which filed its costs budget seven days late due to a change in fee-earner has been granted relief from sanctions on appeal.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 5th April 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Court lenient over seven-day delay in filing costs budget – Law Society’s Gazette

Amended costs management rules come into force – Litigation Futures

‘The amended costs management rules came into force today as part of the latest CPR update, following the review carried out by a Civil Procedure Rules Committee group headed by Mr Justice Coulson.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 6th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Amended costs management rules come into force – Litigation Futures

Court of Protection plans to shift more costs onto deputies – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 30th, 2016 in consultations, costs, Court of Protection, families, news by sally

‘The Court of Protection is considering giving judges more power to make family members cover the legal costs in disputes over an incapacitated person’s property, affairs or care.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 30th March 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Court of Protection plans to shift more costs onto deputies – Law Society’s Gazette

CA overturns costs order that penalised one party when other was also at fault – Litigation Futures

Posted March 29th, 2016 in appeals, costs, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a circuit judge’s decision to make a costs order against a successful claimant who failed to accept an offer he should have done, because the judge had failed to take account of the defendant’s conduct as well.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on CA overturns costs order that penalised one party when other was also at fault – Litigation Futures

High Court judge tells parties to have another go at disproportionate budgets – Litigation Futures

Posted March 23rd, 2016 in budgets, costs, news, proportionality by tracey

‘A £5m costs budget for a claim worth just over £7m has been ruled disproportionate, with the claimants told to return to the High Court with a new figure.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 22nd March 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court judge tells parties to have another go at disproportionate budgets – Litigation Futures