Recovery of success fees in defamation cases to end – Litigation Futures

Posted December 3rd, 2018 in costs, defamation, fees, freedom of expression, news, privacy, protective costs orders by tracey

‘The government is to abolish the recoverability of success fees in defamation cases – but retain it for after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums, it announced yesterday.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 30th November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Gamekeeper’s environmental Aarhus claim to shoot buzzards? – UK Human Rights Blog

‘An interesting point arose in this judicial review (for which see Rosalind English’s post here). Could the claimant get the benefit of an order that any costs he might have had to pay were capped at £5,000? The original judge, Thirlwall J, when granting permission, had refused this costs protection. Ouseley J granted it, though, because the claimant won, the order is academic (short of a successful appeal by the defendant). ‘

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

QASA barristers in last throw of the dice with appeal to Supreme Court – Legal Futures

‘Four criminal law barristers have appealed to the Supreme Court in their judicial review of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) – despite a costs bill which already totals £215,000, Legal Futures can reveal.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 17th December 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Professional bodies unite to attack “chilling effect” of judicial review reforms – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives have urged peers to amend the judicial review provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, saying the measures would have a “chilling effect”.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 20th October 2014

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

QASA challenge could cost criminal barristers £215,000 – Legal Futures

Posted August 11th, 2014 in appeals, barristers, costs, news, protective costs orders, quality assurance by sally

‘The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and circuits could face a £65,000 bill – nearly twice what they had hoped for – if their Court of Appeal bid to derail the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) fails, it has emerged.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 11th August 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Private nuisance – Article 6 and the costs conundrum – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted July 25th, 2014 in costs, human rights, insurance, news, nuisance, protective costs orders by tracey

‘Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, 23 July 2014, read judgment and Austin v. Miller Argent [2014] EWCA Civ 1012, 21 July 2014. Two important cases in the last few days showing how difficult it is to find a fair way to litigate private nuisance cases. Most of these claims have a modest financial value, but may raise complex factual and expert issues, even before you get to the law. The first case I shall deal with, Coventry, shows the iniquities of the recently departed system. The second, Austin, the dangers of the new.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd July 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted July 23rd, 2014 in damages, EC law, law reports, nuisance, protective costs orders by michael

Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1012;  [2014] WLR (D)  331

‘Private nuisance actions were in principle capable of constituting procedures which fell within the scope of article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention. There had to be a significant public interest in the action to justify conferring special costs protection on a claimant. The article 9.4 obligation which afforded procedural costs protection was no more than a factor to take into account when deciding whether to grant a protected costs order.’

WLR Daily, 21st July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

You cannot be serious! Peers call ‘out’ on Government’s judicial review reforms – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Not in our name: Parliamentary committee rejects Government’s case for Judicial Review reform – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE, summarises the important Joint Committee on Human Rights report “The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review”.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 30th April 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Aarhus: CJEU rules against UK costs regime – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Litigation costs are troublesome, but they are particularly difficult in environmental cases where the claimant is not necessarily pursuing his private interests. This case is the result of a long-running and successful campaign by NGOs to persuade the EU Commission to investigate UK environmental legal costs. The main finding may not bother the UK too much, because wisely it saw this one coming and changed costs rules in environmental public law cases. But a subsidiary ruling about cross-undertakings as to damages will cause the courts, if not the Government, to rethink things.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 18th February 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

European Commission v United Kingdom (Kingdom of Denmark and another intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted February 17th, 2014 in costs, EC law, law reports, protective costs orders by sally

European Commission v United Kingdom (Kingdom of Denmark and another intervening) (Case C‑530/11); [2014] WLR (D) 69

‘A European Union (“EU”) Directive could not be transposed by national case law since EU law conferred on individuals specific rights which would need unequivocal rules in order to be effective. In the field of public participation in decision‑making and access to justice in environmental matters, the costs regime laid down by United Kingdom case law did not ensure a claimant reasonable predictability in relation to both whether the costs of the judicial proceedings in which he became involved were payable by him and their amount, although such predictability appeared particularly necessary because judicial proceedings in the United Kingdom entailed high lawyers’ fees. Moreover, the United Kingdom’s system of cross-undertakings in respect of the grant of interim relief constituted an additional element of uncertainty and imprecision so far as concerned compliance with the requirement that proceedings not be prohibitively expensive.’

WLR Daily, 13th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Judicial Review In Planning – Further Changes Are Afoot! –

Posted February 14th, 2014 in costs, judicial review, news, planning, protective costs orders by sally

‘Following recent announcements in the press, including a front page headline in The Times this week, the Government published the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on Wednesday, 5 February 2014. Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of important changes to be introduced which seek, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, to prevent judicial review from being a “brake on growth”. However, whilst it has been reported in the national press that the proposals mean that only individuals or groups with a financial interest in a case will be able to bring a challenge, this is inaccurate. The Government originally proposed narrowing the test for standing so as to restrict the availability of judicial review to those with a “direct interest” but that proposal has now been dropped.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 6th February 2014

Source: www.no5.com

Judicial review reforms will discourage “ill-conceived and vexatious claims”, experts say – OUT-LAW.com

‘Changes to the rules governing judicial review (JR) claims will ensure that those challenging the decisions of public bodies face a “fair level of financial risk”, the Government has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Government JR reforms ‘take a sledgehammer to the rule of law’ – LegalVoice

Posted February 7th, 2014 in consultations, judicial review, legal aid, news, protective costs orders by tracey

‘Controversial proposals to restrict judicial review will go ahead by way of a “a tough package of reform”, the government confirmed yesterday. Publishing its response to the consultation, Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: “I believe in protecting judicial review as a check on unlawful executive action, but I am equally clear that it should not be abused, to act as a brake on growth.”

Full story

LegalVoice, 6th February 2014

Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk

QASA claimants lose bid to cut costs exposure – Legal Futures

Posted October 31st, 2013 in barristers, costs, news, protective costs orders, quality assurance by michael

“Mr Justice Bean refused to amend the protective costs order (PCO) granted earlier this month by Mr Justice Ouseley, which at £150,000 was 10 times greater than that the four claimants – who are supported by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) – had sought.”

Full story

Legal Futures, 31st October 2013

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Richard III on the move again – pitched into the current judicial review debate – UK Human Rights Blog

“The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for Justice and others, Haddon-Cave J, 18 October 2013 (PCO), and on permission, 15 August 2013. I posted here on the original judgment giving the Plantagenet Alliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to re-bury Richard III in Leicester. At the time, the judge had made a full Protective Costs Order in favour of the Alliance, so that it would not have to pay costs if it lost. The judge had also ordered what he envisaged to be a short hearing to determine in what sum the Alliance’s costs should be capped. if it won.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

High Court dismisses challenge to PCO in Richard III burial case – Litigation Futures

“The High Court has comprehensively rejected the government’s bid to overturn the grant of a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of campaigners for the reburial of King Richard III in York.”

Full story

Litigation Futures, 18th October 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Aarhus, A-G Kokott’s opinion, and the PCO reciprocal cap – UK Human Rights Blog

“Forgive me for returning to this case, but it raises all sorts of questions. On the face of it, it concerns 2 specific environmental directives, but it has implications for costs generally in environmental cases.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th October 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

BSB issues statement after Twitter confusion over judicial review costs – The Lawyer

“The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has issued a statement about the costs of a judicial review into the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) following widespread outrage and confusion on Twitter.”

Full story

The Lawyer, 11th October 2013

Source: www.thelawyer.com

Related link: Bar Standards Board Statement on costs and the judicial review of QASA

QASA claimants granted costs cap – but at 10 times the level they wanted – Legal Futures

“The High Court has capped the costs exposure of the four barristers bringing a judicial review against the Legal Services Board (LSB) over the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) – but at a level 10 times the one they had proposed.”

Full story

Legal Futures. 10th October 2013

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk