‘Can litigants in person ‘escape’ the rules relating to costs budgeting in all claims? To what extent does the costs management regime under CPR 3.12 to 3.18 apply to the costs of a litigant in person?’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Ministry of Justice (MoJ) plans to require judicial review claimants to share details of how their action is being funded with the defendant and other parties is “a fundamentally unprincipled breach of the principle of equality of arms”, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) has claimed.’
Litigation Futures, 21st September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘Courts can make a costs management order in relation to litigant in person (LiP) costs, and LiPs can recover costs where they obtain assistance from lawyers short of them having conduct of the case, the chief Chancery master has ruled.’
Litigation futures, 19th September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘There are still relatively few findings of fundamental dishonesty being made by Courts. Despite the fact that this is obviously an important exception to the QOCS regime, the fundamental dishonesty threshold is proving a difficult hurdle for Defendants to meet. This article explores a recent finding of fundamental dishonesty and the lessons that can be learned by Claimants and Defendants in such cases.’
Hardwicke Chamebrs, 17th August 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Although a first instance decision of a district judge, the case of Nicole Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Bolton County Court, 15 June 2016, Case number B74YM281) warrants some attention. The defendant was ordered to pay the unsuccessful claimant’s fixed costs on discontinuance because of its failure to comply with the pre-action protocol.’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd August 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Law Society has welcomed a government decision not to raise the threshold for permission to take cases to the Court of Appeal as part of a package of reforms to reduce delays.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th August 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The chief Chancery master has ordered that a case be cost-managed after its £13m value was not disclosed in the claim form, finding that anyway there were “positive reasons why cost management is desirable”.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd August 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘One of the most important aspects of the Jackson Reforms relates to costs budgeting and the use of Precedent H.’
New Law Journal, 26th July 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘“Fundamental dishonesty” and other measures, outlined by Denise Brosnan.’
New Law Journal, 26th July 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘David Wright discusses fixed advocacy fees.’
New Law Journal, 26th July 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘James Bickford Smith discusses judicial approaches to procedural default two years after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Denton v White Ltd and another, Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others and Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and considers the challenges still facing practitioners and judges in dealing with applications for relief from sanctions.’
Littleton Chambers, 20th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Disclosure of documents is a significant driver of costs. Where the relevant documents are electronic, the problem is usually exacerbated. This is simply because the vast majority of documents are now created electronically and the proliferation and storage capacity of day-to-day IT equipment is such that the amount of information available may be enormous.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Litigators beware – open conduct in litigation could change the effect of a Part 36 offer, warns Alan Tunkel.’
Counsel, July 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)
‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘HHJ Pelling QC considered whether, when considering if a claimant had beaten its Part 36 offer, the court should simply compare the amount of the judgment with the offer the claimant had made or if account should be taken of the interest that had accrued in the period leading up to the trial.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th July 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘GCN’s Jonathan Holt sets out below the background and detail to the recent emergence of a potential argument employable by those facing a warrant for possession, whether it be as the result of rent arrears or a failure to make mortgage payments.’
Nearly Legal, 13th July 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Randall v Randall [2016] EWCA Civ 494, the Court of Appeal considered whether a creditor of a beneficiary of an estate had sufficient standing to bring a probate claim to challenge the validity of a purported will of the testatrix.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Southport injury firm Fletchers claims to have secured the first judgment ordering defendants to make an interim costs payment based on the new version of the rules which came into force in April 2013.’
Litigation Futures, 5th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer at trial because of the interest on the damages awarded through to judgment is not entitled to enhanced costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Norris J has recently had to deal with an interesting case where he faced an application that he should recuse himself from a case. It also highlighted the negative impact a litigant in person can have on a case and administration of the Courts.’
Zenith PI, 29th June 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024