‘In a landmark ruling for lawyers and insurers, the Supreme Court has paved the way for personal injury settlements to be successfully challenged if the claimant is subsequently found to have lied.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A shipping magnate’s son who said he endured a five-week “public rubbishing” because of the actions of the father of a woman who accused him of rape has lost his High Court libel action.’
The Independent, 27th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘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
‘A long-awaited report on the future of civil courts has recommended a new online court for dealing with all monetary claims up to £25,000.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.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
‘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
‘Litigation is often personal. Parties will often know one another prior to commencing proceedings. But, it is rarely the case, that litigation – let alone a raft of separate proceedings – will arise, purely it might seem, as a personal vendetta. ‘Vendetta’ is the word that Mr Justice Males used in his judgment in Bluebird Productions Ltd v Eustace [2014] EWHC 1095 (QB) [27] (“Bluebird”).’
No. 5 Chambers, 14th June 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘The fact that a clinical negligence case had become a quantum-only dispute did not take it out of the costs management regime, meaning that the claimant’s failure to serve a costs budget restricted its recoverable costs to the court fees only, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 25th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Families of some of the British troops killed in Iraq have launched a public crowdfunding appeal to pay for lawyers to potentially sue those responsible.’
BBC News, 19th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Defence companies have claimed £61m of expenditure from the taxpayer that was “potentially” not allowed under contract rules, a watchdog has said.’
BBC News, 14th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB)
‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where a party intervenes in an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ordinary a costs order will not be made in the intervener’s favour. The court will only consider departing from its ordinary position if it is satisfied that (1) the intervener’s position was successful, (2) its submission added value to the hearing, and (3) it had not duplicated the respondent’s submissions (paras 10, 12).’
WLR Daily, 7th 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
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld an injunction over what was a relatively minor breach of a right to light, primarily because of the developer’s poor conduct throughout the dispute.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Khawar Qureshi QC provides an overview of recent trends and issues relating to the arbitral process’
Counsel, July 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘What can the recently re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims offer parties and practitioners in this area? Those, and don’t worry you’re not alone, oblivious to its original launch as a pilot scheme in February 2015 may be part of the reason for its re-launch 15 months later. The original scheme apparently saw only two adjudications (hardly a sample sufficient to judge the efficacy of the scheme). The re-launched scheme covers a wider range of professionals, the removal of any limit on the amount of the claim and an attempt to cap the fees of the appointed adjudicator within certain bands depending on the value of the claim.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 29th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The case of Dos Santos Medes v Hochtief (UK) Constructions Ltd dealt with the issue of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) under the Civil Procedures Rules (CPR) in a claim brought under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA Protocol). Jasmine Murphy examines the case and its potential implications.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025