‘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).’
Litigation Futures, 7th December 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 27th November 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 19th November 2018
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 13th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd November 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 31st October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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’.’
Litigation Futures, 19th October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2018