‘A costs judge was wrong to give the paying party the benefit of the doubt when she was not sure if there was an implied retainer in existence before the written agreement, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 21st August 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The SRA has issued warning notices[1] to solicitors regarding whether they should act and how they should act towards their clients in relation to purported transactions concerning investment schemes. However, for many the warning will have come too late since many investors have previously parted with deposits (in some cases amounting to the client’s life savings) in return for worthless insurance bonds and unsecured interests in land or property which are also found to be worthless when the developer defaults on the development and becomes insolvent.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th July 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer after expiry of the 21 day period, many claimants (and legal commentators) have argued that the claimant should be entitled to recover indemnity costs from the expiry of the relevant period, just as they would if the case had gone to trial and the same result had been achieved. This argument has been particularly attractive to claimants where fixed costs apply, as an order for indemnity costs will allow the claimant to recover more than fixed costs. A number of County Court Judges and District Judges have accepted this argument in PI actions to which fixed costs apply.’
Hailsham Chambers, 23rd July 2018
‘Civil claimants despairing at Part 36 costs rules have a ray of hope following a court’s decision to swing the pendulum their way again. In Holmes v West London Mental Health NHS Trust the High Court ruled last week that a defendant party who waited 15 months to accept a Part 36 offer must pay indemnity costs covering the period of delay.’
Law Society's Gazette, 3rd August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘There are lessons for practitioners in all areas in the judgment of Rose J in Aeroflot v Forus and others. That case – a long-running chancery matter concerning skulduggery, political intrigue and alleged fraud –stands as a reminder that parties plead fraud at their peril.’
Zenith PI, 17th July 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Russian state airline Aeroflot has been ordered to pay indemnity costs for the entire eight years of a fraud claim that it dropped on the eve of opening submissions.’
Litigation Futures, 10th July 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is wrong to assume that premiums will fall as a result of its professional indemnity insurance (PII) reforms, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has warned.’
Legal Futures, 25th June 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of a High Court judge who was wrongly told by counsel that indemnity costs were the default order when a claimant failed to beat a part 36 offer.’
Litigation Futures, 12th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Indemnity insurance reforms put forward by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) last month will damage the small firms the regulator is trying to help, a specialist law firm has warned.’
Legal Futures, 4th April 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In Nesbit Law Group LLP the Court of Appeal had to determine the proper construction of an exclusion clause in a series of Fidelity Guarantee Indemnity policies and whether the insurer should be permitted to amend its defence (the application having been made weeks before the hearing of the appeal) to allege various breaches of a loan agreement by insured which breaches were necessary for the insured to be caught by the exclusion clause.’
4 New Square, 23rd February 2018
Source: www.insurancelaw.london
‘An award of indemnity costs after a successful part 36 offer in a provisional assessment does not remove the £1,500 costs cap, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 20th December 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘After-the-event insurance which can be voided does not constitute adequate security for costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Overturning the decision of Mr Justice Snowden, Lord Justice Longmore said the case raised “important questions of principle” because the original decision showed “there may be a tendency (I put it no higher) for judges at first instance to accept that an ATE policy can stand as security for costs.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A member of the public has failed in a bid to force Liverpool City Council to disclose the legal advice behind its decision to pay the costs incurred by elected mayor Joe Anderson in an unfair dismissal case.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th October 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected the chance to approve indemnity costs against a losing party after it found the bringing of the case could be justified.’
The Guardian, 10th October 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A regional costs judge has concluded that he was wrong to rule in a previous case that late acceptance of a part 36 offer automatically entitled the claimant to an award of indemnity costs, and thus provided an escape route out of fixed costs.’
Litigation Futures, 9th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has backed the order of indemnity costs against a retired couple involved in a battle over access to gas and electricity meters, who “had not come to court to assist the court in resolving the dispute but to assist themselves”.’
Litigation Futures, 15th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has found that a lender must be rational when exercising its contractual discretion to charge collection fees under a receivables finance agreement. The agreement allowed for fees of up to 15%, however, the maximum chargeable for the lender to remain compliant with its duty was found, in this case, to be 4%.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st august 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Last month I discussed the Court of Appeal decision in Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover PLC [2017] EWCA Civ 357 in which the insurers were held to be entitled to avoid a commercial landlord policy on grounds of non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings. The Courts again considered avoidance for misrepresentation and non-disclosure in this latest case heard by Judge Slater in the Queens Bench Division.’
Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’
Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has reproached the Law Society for a “deeply unimpressive” explanation of its failure to disclose all the documents it should have done in the Socrates case.’
Legal Futures, 7th June 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2018