‘Courts in England and Wales have new powers to change the maximum cost liabilities that those challenging environmental decisions of public bodies’ through judicial review could be exposed to under new rules that are now in force.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It will be important for judges to take a co-ordinated approach as the case law around legal costs and cost budgeting develops, a High Court judge has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Appellant had succeeded against the Respondent in a clinical negligence claim but when the matter came before District Judge Lumb for a detailed assessment of her costs, he was asked to determine as a preliminary issues whether his discretion on costs was fettered by the cots budgeting regime. The case had settled in advance of the trial with the inevitable consequence that the Appellant’s costs were significantly less than those which had been budgeted for and approved pursuant to a previous costs management order made under CPR 3.15(2).’
Zenith PI Blog, 1st March 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘On 3rd February 2017 the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017 were made. The majority of these rules will come into force on 6th April 2017.’
Zenith PI, 28th February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘An approved or agreed budget will bind the parties at detailed assessment unless there is good reason not to, the High Court has ruled in a decision that is almost certain to go to the Court of Appeal.’
Litigation Futures, 24th February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Ben Mansfield, barrister of The 36 Group, examines the judgment of Mr Justice Keehan in H (A Minor) v Northamptonshire County Council and the Legal Aid Agency [2017] EWHC 282 (Fam).’
Family Law Week, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A recent ruling caused by “shoddy” drafting of the CPR highlights the importance of any extension of fixed costs being accompanied by “a well-drafted and fully integrated set of procedural rules”, a costs specialist has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘CPR r.3.1(7) gives the court a general power to vary or revoke an order, but does this extend to a final order?’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Stuart Clark, Associate, and David Hodson, Partner, both of The International Family Law Group LLP, describe what is known, and ask some questions, of the MoJ’s latest initiative to facilitate an online divorce system.’
Family Law Week, 7th February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A recent decision by Master Matthews in Menalou v Bank of Cyprus UK Limited [2016] EWHC 2656 (Ch), in a characteristically detailed and interesting judgment, reaffirms the author’s long-held view that the appropriate procedure for the a claimant, claiming to be subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien, to use is to apply for an order for sale and vesting/appointment orders under s90 Law of Property Act 1925. Section 90 reads as follows:
“90.— Realisation of equitable charges by the court.
(1) Where an order for sale is made by the court in reference to an equitable mortgage on land (not secured by a legal term of years absolute or by a charge by way of legal mortgage) the court may, in favour of a purchaser, make a vesting order conveying the land or may appoint a person to convey the land or create and vest in the mortgagee a legal term of years absolute to enable him to carry out the sale, as the case may require, in like manner as if the mortgage had been created by deed by way of legal mortgage pursuant to this Act, but without prejudice to any incumbrance having priority to the equitable mortgage unless the incumbrancer consents to the sale…”’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The claimants issued a claim form on 26 April 2016, arguably just before the expiry of the relevant limitation periods. As a result of the claimants’ failure immediately to serve the claim form, the defendants’ solicitors gave notice under CPR r 7.7 requiring the claimants to serve or discontinue by Friday, 10 June. On that day, in compliance with CPR r 7.5(1), the claim form was left at the relevant place, namely the defendants’ solicitors, they having been authorised to accept service. The defendants applied for dismissal of the claim pursuant to r 7.7(3) on the ground that there had been neither service nor discontinuance by 10 June, since, by CPR r 6.14, the claim form was deemed to have been served on Tuesday, 14 June, namely the second business day after completion of the relevant step under rule 7.5(1).’
WLR Daily, February 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal considered a “short but important point of interpretation of the Civil Procedure Rules” concerning the costs of pre-action disclosure (“PAD”) applications in cases which started, but no longer continue, under the EL/PL Protocol.’
Zenith PI Blog, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Applications for pre-action disclosure (PAD) in cases that leave the personal injury portals are still subject to fixed costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A High Court judge has rejected a judicial review challenge brought by four local authorities over the Transport Secretary’s decision to back a third runway at Heathrow Airport.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th January 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In November 2016, the Government responded in rather disappointing terms (here) to a consultation about amending its costs rules in civil cases to reflect the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th January 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Joseph Rainer, barrister, Queen Elizabeth Building, analyses the implications of the Law Commission’s report Enforcement of Family Financial Orders.’
Family Law Week, 19th January 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In his final report, Lord Justice Jackson said: “Disproportionate costs do not become proportionate because they were necessary. In my view, that disproportionate element of the costs cannot be saved, even if the individual items within it were both reasonable and necessary”.’
Litigation Futures, 17th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has dismissed a defendant firm’s attempt to have a claim thrown out after a key form was served late. Mr Justice Andrew Baker said London firm Rosling King, representing a broker in an insurance dispute, had served the claim form after the required deadline in June last year.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th January 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The principle outlined in the White Book that the Court of Appeal should more readily grant permission to appeal in patent cases no longer holds good, it ruled last week.’
litigation Futures, 20th December 2016
Source: www.litgationfutures.com
‘Julia Messervy-Whiting & Sofia Lobosco outline the importance of compliance with court orders, directions and CPR.’
New Law Journal, 19th December 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024