Leading firm left with court fees budget after late service – Litigation Futures

Posted December 7th, 2018 in budgets, case management, costs, fees, indemnities, law firms, news, sanctions, service by tracey

‘A leading national law firm that served its budget late has failed in an application for relief from sanctions only made on the day of the case and costs management conference (CCMC).’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 7th December 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Divorce is not a “blank cheque” for litigation, judge warns – Legal Futures

Posted November 27th, 2018 in costs, divorce, financial provision, indemnities, legal representation, news by tracey

‘Litigation is not a “blank cheque” and divorcing people cannot behave on the basis that they are bound to be reimbursed for their costs, a leading family law judge has warned.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 27th November 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Appealing findings made by the TCC: guidance from the Court of Appeal – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted November 22nd, 2018 in appeals, civil procedure rules, fire, indemnities, insurance, news by tracey

‘In 2014, a waste plant owned by Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd was damaged by fire. Its insurer, Millennium Insurance Company Ltd, declined to indemnify the company in relation to the fire, citing alleged breaches of a variety of policy terms. At first instance, Mr Jonathan Acton Davis QC, sitting as Deputy High Court judge, ruled that Wheeldon was entitled to the indemnity.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 19th November 2018

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Judge criticises City solicitor for giving witness statement to journalist – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court judge has strongly criticised a City partner who gave a journalist a copy of a witness statement made in support of an application for pre-action disclosure.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Defendants pay heavy price for refusing to discuss costs – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Defendants in a professional negligence claim who rejected the chance to settle costs have been left nursing a bill at least three times higher than it might have been.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 2nd November 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Top family solicitor opts for BSB entity regulation – Legal Futures

Posted November 5th, 2018 in barristers, indemnities, insurance, news, regulations, solicitors by sally

‘The former national head of family law at Simpson Millar has set up his own firm and chosen to be regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 5th November 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Firm terminated retainer “without notice or good reason” – Litigation Futures

Posted October 31st, 2018 in fees, indemnities, insurance, law firms, news, notification, winding up by sally

‘A law firm’s decision to terminate its retainer without notice to the client – because it was closing down – was unreasonable and it could not claim the fees due before then, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 31st October 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Claimants who discontinued huge case during trial ordered to pay indemnity costs – Litigation Futures

Posted October 19th, 2018 in bankruptcy, civil procedure rules, costs, debts, indemnities, insolvency, news by sally

‘Claimants who discontinued their case four days into a six-week trial have been ordered to pay the defendants’ costs on the indemnity basis because their conduct took it ‘out of the norm’.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 19th October 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Judge wrong to give paying party benefit of doubt over implied retainer – Litigation Futures

Posted August 22nd, 2018 in bankruptcy, costs, indemnities, news, remuneration, solicitors by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 21st August 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

“Off-Plan” Investment Schemes: Equitable Compensation – Hardwicke Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 12th July 2018

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Part 36: no presumption in favour of indemnity costs on late acceptance – Hailsham Chambers

Posted August 7th, 2018 in costs, delay, indemnities, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 23rd July 2018

Source: zm4b8103lu53ydv9q1e2go51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Costs blow for tardy defendant with ‘worse than hopeless’ case – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 6th, 2018 in costs, delay, hospitals, indemnities, negligence, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 3rd August 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Indemnity costs, allegations of fraud and discontinuance: PJSC Aeroflot v Forus and others [2018] EWHC 1735 (Ch) – Zenith PI

Posted July 20th, 2018 in costs, fraud, indemnities, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 17th July 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

High Court orders indemnity costs against claimant that discontinued on eve of hearing – Litigation Futures

Posted July 10th, 2018 in airlines, costs, fraud, indemnities, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th July 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Indemnity insurance reforms not worth the risk, cautions ABI – Legal Futures

Posted June 25th, 2018 in indemnities, insurance, news, solicitors by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 25th June 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Court of Appeal overturns ruling based on bad advice from counsel – Litigation Futures

Posted June 13th, 2018 in appeals, costs, indemnities, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th June 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Indemnity insurance reforms “will damage small firms” – Legal Futures

Posted April 4th, 2018 in indemnities, insurance, law firms, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 4th April 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 268 – 4 New Square

Posted March 16th, 2018 in exclusion clauses, indemnities, insurance, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 23rd February 2018

Source: www.insurancelaw.london

Provisional assessment cap not displaced by part 36 offer, Court of Appeal rules – Litigation Futures

Posted December 20th, 2017 in costs, indemnities, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 20th December 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court of Appeal: ATE that can be voided is not adequate replacement for security for costs – Litigation Futures

Posted November 24th, 2017 in costs, indemnities, insurance, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com