‘One of the advantages of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is said to be the fact that its three-member panel typically includes an economist. But is that really such a big advantage over the High Court?’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 9th June 2016
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘The new rules limiting the recovery of the costs of civil court action to a “proportionate” amount may prevent successful parties from recovering costs that would otherwise have been reasonable, a senior costs judge has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Kerry Underwood concludes his 60th birthday tour with a master class on small claims, portals & Pt 36.’
New Law Journal, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Where the County Court has made a decision on appeal from a district judge or deputy district judge the position as to an appeal from the County Court’s decision is as follows. (i) If the County Court has heard the appeal and ruled on the issues determined by the district judge (including the validity or otherwise of the claims, the relief to be granted and the costs of the hearing before the district judge) then, by virtue of article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, any appeal will lie only to the Court of Appeal. Permission must be sought from the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR r 52.13, and the second appeal test, set out in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, will apply. (ii) In respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court, any appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to article 5 of the 2000 Order, but the second appeal test will not apply. (iii) It would be open to the County Court judge to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court and the normal test for permission will apply. It would also be open to the Court of Appeal to grant permission applying the same test. (iv) If there has not been what can properly be regarded as a hearing of the appeal, any appeal (which is almost certainly to be one on costs) is to the High Court judge and the normal test will apply (paras 34, 41–42, 44–47, 51, 52, 54, 55).’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has deflected a call by the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) to introduce fixed costs in costs-only proceedings, saying that the issue should form part of the wider reform agenda.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘Costs protection will apply to first appeals in personal injury proceedings, the High Court has ruled in a judgment intended to clear up an area of confusion.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The senior judiciary agrees with Lord Justice Jackson that fixed recoverable costs should not be introduced in clinical negligence cases in isolation, but as part of their extension across the entire fast-track and ‘lower’ end of the multi-track, it has emerged.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A defendant cannot withdraw an admission of liability because the value of a claim has increased, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In the recent cases of Cook v Virgin Media Ltd and McNeil v Tesco Plc [2016] 1WLR 1672, the Court of Appeal had to consider two cases raising a virtually identical issue. Each case related to a Scottish claimant claiming for personal injuries sustained in Scotland against Defendants who had registered offices in England and Wales. Mr Cook claimed that he suffered personal injury in a tripping accident in East Kilbride as a result of the negligence of Virgin Media. Virgin Media admitted liability. The claim was brought through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. In their defence Virgin Media said that the claim would be more appropriately dealt with in Scotland. In the second case Mr McNeil had suffered injuries in a Tesco store in Glasgow. He too claimed putting a claim through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. Tesco denied liability and said that the claim should have been brought in Scotland. Both these cases were shunted to Carlisle County Court. (It is perhaps a pity that the old Berwick-upon-Tweed County Court has long closed its doors, since it might have been an ideal venue.)’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th May 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In Churchill v Boot 2016 (QBD 22/04/2016) permission to appeal against a master’s order refusing permission to amend a cost budget was refused.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th May 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘HHJ Armstrong refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal the decision of District Judge Read that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the Claimant could not establish need in relation to a vehicle he had hired.’
Zenith PI Blog, 27th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)
‘Claiming that he had been unlawfully detained, the claimant sought, through the route of judicial review, immediate release from detention, determination of the defendant’s liability for his false imprisonment and resolution as to whether, if false imprisonment was established, damages should be compensatory or nominal. The defendant had detained the claimant under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The judge held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013 and was entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment, to be assessed on a compensatory basis. The claimant failed in his public law claim in relation to accommodation, deportation and removal. An issue arose as to costs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that as the claimant had succeeded on only one issue out of four he was entitled to only 25% of his costs.’
WLR Daily, 12th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) by the victim of an accident in France does not have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.
Litigation Futures, 26th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In recent years there have been many high-profile protests on public property; St Paul’s Cathedral and the Parliament Square protests are two of the best known. These resulted in the cases of City of London v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 and Hall and others v Mayor of London [2010] EWCA Civ 817. There are also numerous instances of protesters occupying privately-owned commercial land, claiming the protection of human rights defences to stay in possession. Ultimately, the law is against the trespassers but, without swift action, delay can cost the landowner significant sums. These costs are commonly due to the extra security required to prevent further trespassers from entering; the halt to construction or refurbishment works; and the disruption to a working building. It is not uncommon for landowners to incur costs of several hundred thousand pounds while enforcing possession orders against trespassers. Owners would be well advised to plan for such an incursion if there is a risk that their property could be a target.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In Phillips v Willis the Court of Appeal held that it was wrong in law and “irrational” for a claim proceeding via the low-value RTA Protocol to be reallocated to the small claims track simply because only hire charges remained in dispute. The claim should properly have been dealt with at a Stage 3 hearing.’
Zenith PI Blog, 25th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024