‘A paralegal has been ordered to pay costs of just over £20,000 for bringing a “hopeless and misconceived” employment tribunal claim against a law firm.’
Legal Futures, 25th March 2025
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A council’s threat of legal costs against landowners if they did not undertake to stop developing their land was not “coercive”, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th March 2025
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a law firm’s conditional fee agreement had retrospective effect, even if that was not specifically set out in the contract.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th March 2025
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Computer scientist Dr Craig Wright has been ordered to pay £225,000 in legal costs by a judge after he was found to have “improperly used AI” in a failed bid to appeal against a High Court ruling that he is not the founder of Bitcoin.’
The Independent, 6th March 2025
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A former client of a leading family law firm should be allowed to sue over its alleged failure to advise about its own negligence, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 6th March 2025
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Something had gone “badly amiss” for a six-figure claim over an accident in Wales to be litigated in London’s Royal Courts of Justice, a judge has said.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th March 2025
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Farhana Mukith reviews the SCCO’s decision in St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO) in which Costs Judge Leonard struck out a number of Points in Dispute which did not properly identify the issues in dispute.’
12 KBW, 18th February 2025
Source: 12kbw.co.uk
‘Welcome to our latest Travel & Aviation newsletter, edited by Katherine Deal KC.’
3 Hare Court, 11th February 2025
Source: lexlinks.3harecourt.com
‘The unsuccessful claimant in the first opt-out collective action decided by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has been ordered to make an interim costs payment of £14m.’
Legal Futures, 21st February 2025
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has castigated the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for prosecuting a law firm and two partners based on “accusation without evidence”.’
Legal Futures, 18th February 2025
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A special approach has been taken to gastric illness (‘GI’) claims since it was established in the case law in Kempson & Kempson v First Choice Holidays (2007) and Wood v TUI Travel Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 11 that food or drink contaminated with bacteria in sufficient quantity to cause illness cannot be considered to have been “fit for purpose” or of “satisfactory quality” under ss4 and 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This is not a “strict liability” regime, as confirmed in Wood v TUI, but it does set GI claims apart from other package travel claims in terms of what a claimant is required to establish. Since 2018, the costs associated with GI claims have also been dealt with distinctly from those in other package claims.’
3 Hare Court, 6th February 2025
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘Rachel Sullivan analyses a case where it was successfully argued that contempt proceedings, brought against the local authority in a dispute over the felling of trees, were an Aarhus Convention claim and thus the claimant was entitled to costs protection.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th February 2025
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In this article, Shail Patel KC and John Williams analyse the recent Court of Appeal decision in Barrowfen Properties, with a focus on the court’s findings on loss of a chance. It’s a must-read for any practitioners dealing with loss of a chance claims; and the case gives important guidance on how loss of a chance principles interact with the rules on mitigation, causation, and the quantification of damages.’
4 New Square, 29th January 2025
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Businesses commencing court proceedings in England and Wales have obtained fresh guidance on what they need to do when seeking to challenge costs claims put forward by opponents they are in litigation against, experts have said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th January 2025
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Prince Harry has been told that he and fellow claimants taking legal action against the Daily Mail publishers must not spend more than £4.1m on costs – around £14m less than they were proposing.’
The Independent, 24th January 2025
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In view of the name of this case HO v TL [2024] 2 FLR 175, and the fact that the family business was a hotel business, I really hope that it will become known as “The Hotel Case”. Anyway, it does deserve to become known, because it is another decision from Peel J of the type referred to by Edward Kenny in his article last month, i.e. a really useful authority that sets out fundamental points, and quite a lot of them in this case. What is more, the costs decision in this case is also reported HO v TL (Costs) [2024] 2 FLR 200 and fits into the same category.’
Becket Chambers, 18th December 2024
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘A protester has been ordered to pay more than £7,500 after failing to comply with a public space protection order (PSPO), which created a designated safe zone outside a reproductive health clinic in Ealing.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd January 2025
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025