Contractual indemnity clauses and costs of service charge proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 1st, 2016 in costs, indemnities, landlord & tenant, leases, news, tribunals by sally

‘A landlord may rely on a contractual indemnity clause in a lease to claim as an administration charge the whole of the costs of service charge proceedings in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) even where it has already been awarded some of its costs under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, as Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President, has held in 87 St George’s Square Management Ltd v Whiteside [2016] UKUT 438 (LC).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 14th November 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Third party funders as liable for indemnity costs as any other fees, appeal court rules – OUT-LAW.com

Posted November 29th, 2016 in appeals, costs, indemnities, news, third parties by sally

‘Commercial third party funders are liable for the costs consequences of a litigant’s misconduct, regardless of whether they themselves were guilty of any “discreditable conduct or conduct which could be criticised”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Fairhold Freeholds No. 2 Limited v Moody [2016] UKUT 311 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers

Posted November 9th, 2016 in appeals, costs, fees, indemnities, landlord & tenant, leases, news, tribunals by sally

‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that an indemnity given in a lease can be viewed as a promise by the tenant to protect the landlord from the landlord’s liability to a third party. For the tenant to be liable, the tenant’s breach must be the reason for the landlord’s liability to the third party. In this case, the indemnity was not drafted widely enough to render the tenant responsible for the administrative and legal costs incurred by the landlord once the ground rent had been tendered (even though it was tendered late).’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Claimant who only beat part 36 offer because of post-Brexit fall in sterling denied usual rewards – Litigation Futures

Posted August 1st, 2016 in brexit, costs, EC law, indemnities, insurance, news, part 36 offers, referendums by Mark L

‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer because of the fall in the value of sterling since the Brexit vote has been denied the usual benefits of enhanced interest, indemnity costs and an additional payment that would have been the maximum £75,000 given the sums at stake.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 29th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Bar Mutual ordered to reimburse barrister after withdrawing funding over panel firm dispute – Legal Futures

‘The Bar’s professional indemnity insurer has been ordered to reimburse a barrister after it withdrew funding for him to defend disciplinary proceedings because he wanted to appoint a non-panel solicitor.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 24th June 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

NHSLA ordered to pay indemnity costs for surveillance video “ambush” – Litigation Futures

‘The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) has been ordered by the High Court to pay indemnity costs after sending a last-minute surveillance video to the claimant’s lawyers which resulted in a trial being vacated.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, indemnities, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365

‘The claimant succeeded in her claim against the defendant for medical negligence in the management of her birth, during which she suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury as a result of shoulder dystocia. The claimant had earlier made a CPR Pt 36 offer to settle liability on the basis that she received 65% of the damages that would accrue on a 100% basis, which had been rejected by the defendant. The judge upheld the first allegation under the claim, namely that the defendant had been negligent in not performing a caesarean section during the claimant’s delivery and held that as she had succeeded in establishing that her injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, she was accordingly entitled to 100% of her claimed damages even though she had been unsuccessful in other specific allegations, including a freestanding second limb of the claim that the delivery itself was negligently managed. On the issue of costs, the claimant contended that because of the defendant’s refusal to accept the Part 36 offer of settlement which had been bettered by the claimant, the consequences of what was then CPR r 36.14(3) (now CPR r 36.17, as amended by The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules (SI 2014/3299), reg 7, Sch 1) applied and as a result the court was unable to make an issues-based order, Part 36 comprising as it did an all or nothing self-contained regime; and that she should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced “Part 36 rate” plus the enhancements specified in Part 36.14(3)(a) and (d). The defendant submitted that the normal cost consequences of CPR r 36.14(3) should be disapplied because, by reference to CPR r 36.14(4), in the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply them; that CPR Part 36 did not prevent the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order to reflect the fact that the claimant failed in respect of the second allegation, which was a discrete and independent allegation and that such an order was appropriate; and that therefore the claimant’s costs referable to the first allegation should be awarded with the CPR Part 36 enhancements but not those in respect of the unsuccessful second allegation. The judge held that (a) the engagement of the CPR Pt 36 cost consequences did not preclude the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order and the court had a discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding that the claimant was a successful claimant; and (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order, under which the claimant would not recover her costs of the second allegation. He ordered that the claimant should recover her damages to be assessed with the 10% addition required by CPR r 36.14(3)(d), plus her costs, excluding those referable to the second allegation and that those costs, incurred after 22 October 2014, were to be assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR r 36.14(3)(d). The claimant appealed on the grounds that (a) on the true construction of Part 36, the discretion of the court under CPR r 36.14(3) was restricted to the enhancements to which a successful claimant was normally entitled in respect of damages, costs and interest, that the court did not have power under Part 36 to deprive a party of part of its costs on the basis that it had failed to establish part of its claim and that Part 36 excluded the normal discretion of the court to make an issues-based or proportionate costs order; (b) alternatively, that a successful claimant could only be deprived of her costs if it was shown that it would be unjust for her to recover all her costs; and (c) that the judge had erred in law in deciding that he could and should deprive the claimant of her costs attributable to the second allegation.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal orders retrial over aggregation of claims against solicitors – Legal Futures

Posted April 15th, 2016 in appeals, contracts, indemnities, insurance, law firms, news, retrials, third parties by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that had protected law firms from financial risk through restricting the way professional indemnity insurers could aggregate multiple claims.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 14th April 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Stevensdrake v Hunt and the indemnity principle – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted March 22nd, 2016 in agreements, costs, fees, indemnities, law firms, news by sally

‘Having successfully obtained judgment for your client in a case where your firm of solicitors is acting under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), it is only natural that thoughts will turn to the firm’s own impending financial reward. But the terms of a CFA, negotiated at the outset of the case, can prove to be a barrier to their underlying commercial purpose: payment by result.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th March 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Part 36 trumps fixed costs, Court of Appeal rules – Litigation Futures

Posted February 24th, 2016 in costs, fees, indemnities, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A party who beats a part 36 offer in a case where fixed fees apply is eligible for indemnity costs, the Court of Appeal ruled today in the wake of conflicting decisions at circuit judge level.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk

Commercial agency: where the principal cannot have his cake and eat it too – Technology Law Update

Posted November 19th, 2015 in agency, commercial agents, compensation, contracts, indemnities, news by tracey

‘On termination of a commercial agency agreement the agent is normally entitled to either an indemnity or compensation. This is a lump sum payment to reward the agent for the goodwill it has developed for the principal. They can agree by contract which option they prefer. But in the absence of agreement, the agent is entitled to compensation.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 16th November 2015

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Good news for law firms as High Court rejects insurer’s bid to cap liability for multiple claims – Legal Futures

Posted August 17th, 2015 in indemnities, insurance, law firms, news, solicitors by sally

‘Solicitors’ professional indemnity insurers cannot aggregate multiple related claims when the terms of the transactions are not conditional or dependent upon each other, the High Court has decided in a ruling said to protect law firms from financial risk.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 17th August 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Indemnity costs in immigration judicial reviews – Free Movement

Posted May 29th, 2015 in costs, immigration, indemnities, judicial review, news by sally

‘The substantive matter in the case of R (on the application of Kaienga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 272 (IAC) was agreed by way of a consent order; however costs had not been agreed between the parties in advance of the hearing. An application was made by the applicant for costs on an indemnity basis as a result of the Home Office’s conduct. UTJ Kopiecek awarded the applicant their costs, but refused to do so on an indemnity basis reiterating that such an order is not designed for punitive purposes.’

Full story

Free Movement, 29th May 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Single-person ‘firms’ dominate first tranche of barrister entities – Legal Futures

Posted April 27th, 2015 in alternative business structures, barristers, indemnities, insurance, news by sally

‘All but one of the entities authorised by the Bar Standards Board since the beginning of this month consist of a single barrister, with the other made up of two barristers, it has emerged.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 27th April 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar – WLR Daily

Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330; [2015] WLR (D) 167

‘The proprietor of a registered charge which turned out to have been a forged disposition was entitled to payment by way of indemnity under Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002 in circumstances where the registered proprietor and rightful owner of the property was in actual occupation at the date of the disposition.’

WLR Daily, 1st April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Businesses line up to be regulated by Bar Standards Board – Legal Futures

Posted March 25th, 2015 in barristers, indemnities, insurance, news, regulations by sally

‘Sixteen businesses have so far completed their applications to be regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB), it has emerged.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 25th March 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Regulator confirms minimum insurance terms for entities – Bar Standards Board

‘The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has today [24 March] published the minimum terms of the professional indemnity insurance it expects BSB-regulated businesses (“entities”) to have in place.’

Full story

Bar Standards Board, 24th March 2015

Source: www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

Civil litigation: indemnity costs – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 17th, 2015 in civil justice, costs, indemnities, news by sally

‘The recent case of Siegel v Pummell [2015] EWHC 195 (QB) demonstrates judicial willingness to make a costs order on the indemnity basis where circumstances exist which justify such an order being made.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 16th March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

THE REAL ADVANTAGES AND RISKS OF PART 36 – Zenith PI Blog

‘In Downing v Peterborough & Stamford NHS Foundation Trust [2014]EWHC 4216 (QB) heard by Sir David Eady on 12th December 2014 the Claimant received an additional £75,000 in damages after beating its own Part 36 offer.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 5th January 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Litigation Funding And Third-Party Costs Orders: A Practical View From The Bar – Littleton Chambers

Posted November 17th, 2014 in costs, indemnities, news, solicitors, third parties by sally

‘In his monthly column, James Bickford Smith considers the effects and scope of the recent decision in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others (Rev 2) [2014] EWHC 3436 (Comm) to make litigation funders liable for third party costs orders.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 11th November 2014

Source: www.littletonchambers.com