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

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

Finance & Divorce Update, July 2016 – Family Law week

‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during June 2016.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 15th July 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off on Finance & Divorce Update, July 2016 – Family Law week

Tribunal fees and access to justice – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 18th, 2016 in employment tribunals, fees, news by sally

‘Since July 2013, it has been necessary to pay a fee to bring a claim in the employment tribunal. This change was introduced with the goal of relieving the pressure on the taxpayer of meeting the £83m bill for running the Employment Tribunal Service. It was also envisaged that it would encourage parties to consider faster and earlier ways to settle disputes.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 18th July 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Tribunal fees and access to justice – Law Society’s Gazette

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB)

‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’

WLR Daily, 1st July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims: a good idea whose time has come? – Hardwicke Chambers

‘What can the recently re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims offer parties and practitioners in this area? Those, and don’t worry you’re not alone, oblivious to its original launch as a pilot scheme in February 2015 may be part of the reason for its re-launch 15 months later. The original scheme apparently saw only two adjudications (hardly a sample sufficient to judge the efficacy of the scheme). The re-launched scheme covers a wider range of professionals, the removal of any limit on the amount of the claim and an attempt to cap the fees of the appointed adjudicator within certain bands depending on the value of the claim.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 29th June 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims: a good idea whose time has come? – Hardwicke Chambers

Shoppers ‘ripped off’ by MasterCard stand to gain £400 compensation in record class action – Daily Telegraph

‘Shoppers have been ripped off by as much as £400 each due to unfair chip and pin charges in shops, lawyers preparing a historic class action case against MasterCard have claimed.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 6th July 2016

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Shoppers ‘ripped off’ by MasterCard stand to gain £400 compensation in record class action – Daily Telegraph

MasterCard faces £19bn lawsuit over claims it ripped off shoppers – The Independent

‘MasterCard is facing a claim of up to £19 billion in damages in a UK collective action over card charges that were passed on to shoppers.’

Full story

The Independent, 6th July 2016

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Comments Off on MasterCard faces £19bn lawsuit over claims it ripped off shoppers – The Independent

High Court overturns trio of cost judge rulings over “failing to advise properly” on CFA switches – Litigation Futures

Posted July 5th, 2016 in appeals, costs, fees, law firms, legal aid, news by sally

‘The High Court has overturned three high-profile costs rulings in which Irwin Mitchell lost the right to recover success fees and insurance premiums from defendants after failing to advise on the 10% uplift in general damages before switching clients from legal aid.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court overturns trio of cost judge rulings over “failing to advise properly” on CFA switches – Litigation Futures

Bar Council responds to latest LSB report on legal services market – Bar Council

‘Responding to the Legal Services Board’s latest report Evaluation: Changes in the legal services market 2006/07 – 2014/15 Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: “The Legal Services Board’s report on changes in the legal services market contains some mixed messages.

Full press release

Bar Council, 4th July 2016

Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk

Comments Off on Bar Council responds to latest LSB report on legal services market – Bar Council

CFA assignment case leapfrogged to Court of Appeal – Litigation Futures

Posted July 1st, 2016 in appeals, assignment, fees, law firms, news by tracey

‘The question of when a conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be assigned from one law firm to another is set for the Court of Appeal, Litigation Futures can report.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 30th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on CFA assignment case leapfrogged to Court of Appeal – Litigation Futures

Now proportionality test bites in the Competition Appeal Tribunal – Litigation Futures

‘Proportionality has hit the Competition Appeal Tribunal as it capped a defendant’s recoverable costs at £350,000, compared to its budgeted costs of £637,000.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 24th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Now proportionality test bites in the Competition Appeal Tribunal – Litigation Futures

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

Insufficient evidence to back employment tribunal fees in current form, MPs say – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 23rd, 2016 in employment tribunals, fees, news, select committees, tribunals by sally

‘”Substantial changes” to the current employment tribunal fee regime are required if an appropriate balance is to be struck between meeting some of the costs of operation and maintaining access to justice, according to an influential committee of MPs.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Insufficient evidence to back employment tribunal fees in current form, MPs say – OUT-LAW.com

MPs castigate government over court and tribunal fee rises – Litigation Futures

‘MPs have hit out at the government’s approach to increasing court fees, with major changes needed to restore an “acceptable level of access to the employment tribunals”, and also urged ministers not to introduce any more civil court fee rises until there is research into the impact of what has been done to date, particularly on London’s competitiveness as a litigation centre.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 20th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on MPs castigate government over court and tribunal fee rises – Litigation Futures

Employment tribunal fees ‘will deny workers justice’ – The Independent

‘Workers unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice because of new Government court fees, a cross party committee of MPs has warned. Since the new employment tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 there has been a “precipitate drop” of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases being brought, the Commons Justice committee said. It can now cost as much as £1,200 simply to bring a claim.’

Full story

The Independent, 20th June 2016

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Comments Off on Employment tribunal fees ‘will deny workers justice’ – The Independent

Neuberger warns of conflict risks posed by ABSs and conditional fees – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 17th, 2016 in alternative business structures, conflict of interest, fees, news by tracey

‘Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger has warned that alternative business structures and conditional fee agreements are two ‘concerning’ developments which could pose a threat to lawyers’ ethical duties.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 16th June 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Neuberger warns of conflict risks posed by ABSs and conditional fees – Law Society’s Gazette

Two-thirds of litigators say increased court fees already putting off clients – Litigation Futures

Posted June 16th, 2016 in civil justice, courts, fees, news, statistics by tracey

‘Two-thirds of litigation lawyers say increased court fees have already deterred clients from commencing proceedings, a survey has found.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 15th June 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Two-thirds of litigators say increased court fees already putting off clients – Litigation Futures

ASA upholds complaint against “your solicitor rips you off” advert – Legal Futures

Posted June 15th, 2016 in advertising, complaints, fees, news, solicitors by sally

‘The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint over an advertisement from a website that claims to help clients recover a “huge amount” of their legal costs, which said that “on average, a solicitor overcharges you by 20%”.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 15th June 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on ASA upholds complaint against “your solicitor rips you off” advert – Legal Futures

Bar Council: use direct access barristers instead of paid McKenzie Friends – Legal Futures

Posted June 10th, 2016 in barristers, budgets, fees, McKenzie friends, news by sally

‘Litigants with limited funds should use direct access barristers to represent them in court rather than pay for McKenzie Friends, the Bar Council has argued.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 10th June 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Bar Council: use direct access barristers instead of paid McKenzie Friends – Legal Futures