‘The Supreme Court will hear an appeal in November by a litigant in person over the defective service of a negligence claim against a Midlands law firm, it has been confirmed.’
Litigation Futures, 29th September 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘RSPB, Friends of the Earth & Client Earth v. Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), 15 September 2017, Dove J. In my March 2017 post here, I explained that amendments to the costs rules for public law environmental claims threatened to undo much of the certainty that those rules had achieved since 2013. Between 2013 and February 2017, if you, an individual, had an environmental judicial review, then you could pretty much guarantee that your liability to the other side’s costs would be capped at £5,000 (£10,000 for companies) if you lost, and your recovery of your own costs would be limited to £35,000 if you won. In this way, the rules sought to avoid the cost of such claims becoming prohibitively expensive and thus in breach of Art.9(4) of the Aarhus Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th September 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has made yet another attempt to clarify rules around service of claim after a dispute over deadlines in a personal injury case.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th September 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has held that CPR 83.13 (permission required to issue a writ of possession) does not require that the occupier be given notice of the actual application for permission. What is required is that they should have sufficient knowledge about the case as a whole.’
Arden Chambers, 15th August 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘In this paper, presented at the recent Blackstone Chambers Employee Competition Seminar, Kerenza Davis addresses the tricky issue of protecting confidential documents when litigating in the areas of employee competition.’
Blackstone Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.employeecompetition.com
‘Often, a litigator’s single greatest desire is for clarity: of instructions, tactics, or argument. Few circumstances can disrupt this as effectively as a large group of clients or opponents, each clamouring for different (often mutually exclusive) approaches. Once such a case reaches a certain size, it is simply not feasible to proceed in the usual way, with all parties giving evidence and making submissions. There are a number of ways of addressing this problem, each with unique benefits and pitfalls.’
Hardwick Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The amount of a costs order in the employment tribunal (ET) can be made subject to detailed assessment, to be carried out (either by the ET or by a county court) in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (rule 78, ET Rules). It was traditionally understood that this application of the CPR to ET procedure was limited to the assessment of the level of costs, as opposed to the separate question of whether costs should be ordered at all. As reflected in the CPR, “costs follow the event” in the civil courts. In contrast, the ET has a limited costs jurisdiction, which depends on the existence of improper or unreasonable conduct and the exercise of discretion in the presence of such conduct as to whether to award costs.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Those who have been readers of this blog for a while may recall our campaign about evictions by High Court Sheriffs where the writs were (wrongly) obtained as an administrative act by using form N293A. This culminated in a practice note by Senior Master Fontaine, stressing that – for tenants, if not for trespassers or mortgage possessions – any application for a writ had to comply with CPR 83.13.’
Nearly Legal, 20th August 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court Master has called on the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) to resolve the “tension” between the need to “spell out in the eventual bill” the costs of costs budgeting and to include them in Precedent H.’
Litigation Futures, 16th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A regional costs judge has ruled in favour of claimants in the latest hearing to consider the issue of fixed costs for interim applications.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th August 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in Pre-Action Correspondence – Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through 2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right.’
NIPC Law, 4th August 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Lord Justice Jackson has today put forward his vision for extending fixed recoverable costs (FRC), but warned that it was not his job to protect the junior Bar or any other part of the profession in doing so.’
Legal Futures, 31st July 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In a long running shareholder dispute, the claimant company sought its costs from the defendants. The defendants had made 3 Part 36 offers in respect of the claimants claim against them. The judge had determined a number of issues in a hearing in November 2016, however there were other remaining issues to be tried. The court was made aware of the fact, but NOT the content, of the offers.’
Zenith PI Blog, 31st July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Litigators should sort out the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents in a grown-up manner without taking up the time of the court, the Court of Appeal has ruled as it granted an order to delete a privileged email that had been accidentally handed over.’
Litigation Futures, 20th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has decided against changing the financial threshold for costs budgeting in high-value personal injury cases, despite the prospect of the new discount rate taking a significant number of claims out of the regime.’
Litigation Futures, 17th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) agreed minor variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as “hot-tubbing” – but acknowledged the changes it has approved to the CPR are “not as radical” as had been recommended by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).’
Litigation Futures, 14th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) should apply where an injured party has the right to pursue compensation against an organisation such as an insurance company or tour operator, rather than the wrongdoer.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th July 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Recent uncertainty as to how a costs budget impacts on the final bill in relation to both incurred and estimated costs has, to some extent, been resolved by the judgment in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792.’
Zenith PI, 6th July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has warned lawyers involved in the “highly contentious area” of credit hire litigation that if they fail to agree a new model order for directions, they risk “a solution being imposed”.’
Litigation Futures, 6th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025