‘The High Court has upheld a decision not to order wasted costs against a law firm that failed to pass on a “drop hands” settlement offer to a client who was ultimately found to be fundamentally dishonest.’
Litigation Futures, 30th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Commercial litigators have vented their frustration – and in some cases anger – with the disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts, and changes to its rules have been put forward as a result of this and other feedback.’
Litigation Futures, 24th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘“No one enters litigation simply expecting a blank cheque.” Francis J in WG v HG [2018] EWFC 84. But is this the case, or are we experiencing a new wave of litigants chancing their luck at the roulette wheel? Costs in financial remedy proceedings have come increasingly under the spotlight in recent years, most recently highlighted in some interesting and important commentary by Mostyn J, Francis J and Cohen J as to the manner in which litigation is conducted.’
Family Law, 16th September 2020
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Law Society has lodged a judicial review against the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) after claiming that they failed to consult properly around a decision to move legal aid cost assessments in-house.’
Family Law, 8th September 2020
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Business and Property Courts must “get a handle” on why most solicitors believe the disclosure pilot is not producing cost savings, the professor monitoring its progress has said.’
Litigation Futures, 9th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A murdered woman’s mother has been told to pay her daughter’s killer £40,000 in legal fees.’
BBC News, 7th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The “extremely drunk” senior partner of a London law firm has been fined £10,000 for touching a paralegal on the bottom and kissing her on the neck while sitting next to her in a bar.’
Legal Futures, 8th September 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A defendant’s potential exposure to paying the premium for after-the-event (ATE) insurance necessary to meet its demand for security for costs was “not relevant” to the question of security, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A High Court judge has criticised public law practitioners for letting judicial reviews “evolve exponentially” so that the claim advanced at the hearing bears “little resemblance” to that for which permission was granted.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A High Court judge was wrong to order a litigation friend, acting for children, to pay costs after unsuccessfully applying to challenge the settlement of a trust dispute, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 26th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A costs judge has struck down three conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in a big-money commercial case for having the potential to lead to a claim for a success fee exceeding 100%.’
Litigation Futures, 27th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A local authority must cover the costs of redacting court documents which are being disclosed to a freelance journalist, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 12th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has overturned a ruling that a claimant who defeated an argument that a car accident he was involved in was bogus, but lied about his injuries, was not fundamentally dishonest.’
Litigation Futures, 11th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court handed down judgment on Friday in Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam), the first recorded judgment concerning journalistic access to the court file in public law family proceedings. The case is likely to be of interest to media lawyers generally, and throws up potential complications surrounding the scope and extent of the privacy rights of children vis-à-vis their parents.’
Panopticon, 7th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The High Court has reversed a costs order on appeal after a successful defendant had initially been forced to pay most of the losing claimant’s costs.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A council has reportedly been charged over the death of a five-year-old girl who was killed by a rotting playground swing, and faces a potential £2m legal bill.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th August 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Video and phone hearings are set to become a permanent feature of the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) even after the coronavirus pandemic has passed, the Senior Costs Judge has said.’
Litigation Futures, 30th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In this case the “court” in question is the Parole Board. The inverted commas are because one of the issues is whether the Board is, in fact, a court for these purposes. Mr Gourlay is a life sentence prisoner. On 10 March 2014 the Parole Board refused to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions (almost always an essential precondition to later release). The Secretary of State usually, but does not always, accept such recommendations. Mr Gourlay challenged the Board’s refusal to make a recommendation. In accordance with a published “litigation strategy” that it has had since 2013 the Board did not engage with that challenge. That strategy takes advantage of a practice encapsulated in a case concerning coroners, R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, which is that courts and tribunals will not usually be ordered to pay costs provided they have maintained a neutral stance. Mr Gourlay succeeded in his challenge, but both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, held that Davies applied to the Board, and so Mr Gourlay did not recover his costs. This meant, amongst other things, that his lawyers were only entitled to be paid at around a quarter to a third of the rate they would have received if party-party costs had been awarded in Mr Gourlay’s favour.’
UKSC Blog, 10th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A damages-based agreement (DBA) was not unenforceable because it obliged the client to pay incurred costs and expenses when she exercised her contractual right of termination, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 13th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024