“The Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson is expected to decide whether the former chief whip, Andrew Mitchell MP, can break a costs order restricting his legal spend on a defamation claim against The Sun to £2,000.”
The Lawyer, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Binns and another v Firstplus Financial Group plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 361
“Where a claimant had obtained an award pursuant to alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) and subsequently brought a civil claim where the only potential advantage in bringing that litigation was the possibility of an additional award in respect of legal costs, the claim was to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2).”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Inmates who cause damage to prisons and prison property will now have to pay for the cost of repairs, the justice secretary has announced.”
BBC News, 30th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Prisoners who cause damage to prisons and prison property will have to pay for the cost of repairs under new plans announced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.”
Ministry of Justice, 30th September 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“I did an initial post here summarising this opinion from the A-G to the CJEU saying that the UK was in breach of two EU Directives about environmental assessment and pollution control – the breaches concerned our system for litigation costs. It struck me that there was a lot in the opinion, and after some re-reads, I continue to think so. So I will deal in this post with one aspect, namely the finding that the UK is in breach, in requiring an undertaking as to damages by the claimant to back up the claimant’s interim injunction – in the jargon, a cross-undertaking.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Magistrates last week upheld a London borough’s bid to tackle spitting in the street through powers normally used to enforce against litter.”
Local Government Lawyer, 25th September 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
“Lord Sugar’s bid to recover costs from the winner of TV’s The Apprentice after she lost a constructive dismissal claim against him has failed.”
BBC News, 25th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“OK, so the title perhaps implies that what follows is more interesting than it is. However, the most recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Nortel/Lehman litigation is of considerable importance for all of us, particularly in the current economic climate.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 23rd September 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Law can be expensive.
This is particularly so in relation to the process of law, i.e. the costs of going to the law. By this I mean things such as the court or tribunal fees, but particularly the costs of the lawyers. If you lose in civil litigation, the normal rule is that you’ve got to pay not just for your own lawyers, but for the other side’s too. Due to the way that costs are assessed and recovered, even the winner often has to foot the bill for some their own lawyers’ fees. It is fair to say that the general public doesn’t think too highly of the fees charged by lawyers. Now, a lot of the criticism is unfair (‘If you think a professional is expensive, wait ’til you try an amateur’) and based on misinformation and misunderstanding. Nonetheless, there is force in some of the criticism.”
NearlyLegal, 24th September 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The judiciary is undertaking a review of those recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson that have not yet been implemented, it has emerged.”
Litigation Futures, 23rd September 2013
Source: www.litigation.com
“HH Simon Brown QC continues his exclusive NLJ online series on costs management post-Jackson.”
New Law Journal, 19th September 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Those of ‘modest means’ could be able to bring defamation and privacy claims without having to worry about covering the other side’s court costs if they lose under proposals put forward by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).”
OUT-LAW.com, 19th September 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A third party litigation funder was entitled to terminate a funding agreement when it reasonably believed that there was a less than 60% chance that the underlying court action would succeed, the High Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th September 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The government has unveiled its latest attempt to resolve the tension between its plans to abolish success fees in CFAs and ATE premiums (to reduce costs in privacy and defamation cases) while still making proceedings accessible to less wealthy parties.”
RPC Privacy Law, 19th September 2013
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
“At the District Judges’ Annual Seminar on 22 March 2013, Lord Dyson said “indulgence can no longer be given where the parties fail to comply with their procedural obligations. It has not taken long for the Court’s to demonstrate that they will get tough.”
Sovereign Chambers, 6th September 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“The High Court has ruled that a third-party litigation funder was entitled to terminate its funding in a case where the prospects of success had fallen below 60%.”
Litigation Futures, 16th September 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Government proposals to allow people of ‘modest means’ to sue for libel without having to pay the other side’s legal costs if they lose could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, a leading media lawyer has warned.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024