High Court judge bemoans “appalling” level of costs in insurance dispute – Litigation Futures

Posted December 12th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A case in which £7m in legal costs were racked up over a dispute worth £904,000 is “an appalling state of affairs which brings no credit to modern commercial litigation”, a High Court judge declared yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 12th December 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

High Court: reasons for withdrawal of part 36 offers must be disclosed – Litigation Futures

Posted October 9th, 2014 in disclosure, evidence, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘Judges who give permission for the withdrawal of part 36 offers must disclose the arguments and evidence behind their decisions, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 9th October 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Claimant lawyers hit back over “cynical” part 36 offers – Litigation Futures

‘The Forum of Complex Injury Lawyers (FOCIS) has hit back after a report for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) recommended that part 36 should be reformed, partly to discourage claimant lawyers from making “cynical” offers.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 20th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Rule committee backs part 36 reforms – Litigation Futures

Posted August 19th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is to consider how part 36 can be reformed – to simplify it, allow offers by counterclaiming defendants and discourage “cynical” claimant offers.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

High Court: making defendant pay 10% more for rejecting part 36 offer would add “penal element” – Litigation Futures

Posted August 13th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, injunctions, news, part 36 offers, penalties by sally

‘A High Court judge has ruled that making a defendant who rejected a part 36 offer pay an additional 10% of the sum awarded for costs would introduce a “penal element” and be unjust.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Unfinished business – New Law Journal

‘Dominic Regan predicts the likely civil procedure developments for 2014.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 29th January 2014

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

What comes first – Mitchell ruling or part 36? – Litigtation Futures

Posted December 19th, 2013 in budgets, civil procedure rules, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘The questions raised by the Mitchell ruling, such as the effect on a part 36 offer of a budget being disallowed, are already emerging as the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision is felt. Barrister Barry Havenhand of Clerksroom has supplied Litigation Futures with details of one case where the failure to file a budget in sufficient time saw the defendant’s budget restricted to its court fees, as in Mitchell.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 17th December 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

PGF II SA v OMFS Co 1 Ltd – WLR Daily

PGF II SA v OMFS Co 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288 ; [2013] WLR (D) 405

“As a general rule, complete silence in the face of a serious invitation to consider alternative dispute resolution amounted to unreasonable conduct and the judge in his discretion could impose costs sanctions.”

WLR Daily, 23rd October 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Part 36 to the fore in this month’s costs cases round-up – Litigation Futures

Posted July 23rd, 2013 in costs, news, part 36 offers by tracey

“Our monthly summary of key costs-related court decisions.”

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th July 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Regina (Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd and others) v Westminster City Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd and others) v Westminster City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 591; [2013] WLR (D) 203

“Since the coming into force of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 a local authority was not permitted, when determining the reasonable licence fee for sex establishments, to reflect in the fee which it determined the cost of enforcing the licensing system against unlicensed operators.”

WLR Daily, 24th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Part 36: Dominic Regan’s cut out & keep survival guide – New Law Journal

Posted May 23rd, 2013 in civil procedure rules, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

“Dominic Regan’s exclusive Pt 36 survival guide.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.newjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

Obtaining cost orders against solicitors – 4 New Square

“Dispute Resolution analysis: When can solicitors who failed to obtain ATE insurance, become parties
to the litigation for the purpose of cost orders? Stephen Innes, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers
looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Heron v TNT.”

Full story (PDF)

4 New Square, 14th May 2013

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Comments Off

No QOCS here: A Guide to the CPR Amendments you may have missed – Zenith Chambers

“In all of the furore surrounding LASPO and the very real concerns about funding, it seems that very little attention has been paid to the significant changes to the CPR which will come into force on 1st April 2013. This is not an article about funding, legal aid, CFAs, DBAs, or even QOCS. Instead it is intended to provide an overview and guidance on the amendments being made to the CPR.”

Full story (PDF)

Zenith Chambers, 28th March 2013

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

High Court wrestles with costs consequences after part 36 offers are accepted out of time – Litigation Futures

Posted January 10th, 2013 in costs, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

“Part 36 continues to trouble the courts, with two rulings recently involving parties seeking to overturn the usual costs consequences of accepting an offer after the usual 21 days.”

Full story

Litigation Futures, 10th January 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others; Zodiac Seats UK Ltd and another v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd; Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another – WLR Daily

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others; Zodiac Seats UK Ltd and another v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd; Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another [2012] EWHC 3318 (Pat); [2012] WLR (D) 349

“A party that referred the court to a term of an offer made by it pursuant to CPR Pt 36 waived its without prejudice privilege and could not prevent the remaining terms of the offer from being referred to the court.”

WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

The Procter & Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 1st, 2012 in costs, law reports, part 36 offers by sally

The Procter & Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another [2012] EWHC 2839 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 299

“Although a monetary claim was the paradigm contemplated by CPR Pt 36, Part 36 was not confined to that. Rule 36.2(2)(c) did not mandate that the claimant had to seek costs and make payment of them a condition of his offer. The substance of the claim, and which of the parties was seeking to establish liability and which to oppose it, was one of the circumstances to be considered by the court in determining whether it would be unjust to make orders for indemnity costs and interest on costs for the purposes of rule 36.14(3).”

WLR Daily, 23rd October 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Beasley (by Cadell Beasley as litigation friend) v Alexander – WLR Daily

Beasley (by Cadell Beasley as litigation friend) v Alexander [2012] EWHC 2715 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 272

“CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit the court to be told the position as to a Part 36 offer and consequently go on to deal with the question of costs at the conclusion of the first part of a split trial.”

WLR Daily, 9th October 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Beware Part 36 – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 3rd, 2012 in costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

“Although the heading to this article ought to be unnecessary, it is plain from recent judgments both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal that insufficient attention is being paid to the Part 36 regime by parties wishing to settle their differences.”

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 28th June 2012

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off

F & C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd and others v Barthelemy and another (No 3) – WLR Daily

Posted June 26th, 2012 in appeals, costs, law reports, part 36 offers by sally

F & C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd and others v Barthelemy and another (No 3) [2012] EWCA Civ 843; [2012] WLR (D) 183

“Where an offer to settle proceedings had been made which was neither in substance nor in form compliant with Part 36, it was wrong in principle to take as directly analogous, and as applicable, the potential costs consequences had it been a Part 36 offer.”

WLR Daily, 22nd June 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Fail to Mediate at your Peril – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted March 6th, 2012 in arbitration, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

“Those of us who act as mediators in property matters have been conscious for some time of the particular suitability of mediation as a forum in which to resolve disputes over property rights. The flexibility and breadth of the mediation process enable the parties to look beyond the strict legal principles with which a Court would be concerned and to identify and address as well the more esoteric and human issues which often lie just beneath the surface in cases involving land.”

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd March 2012

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off