‘Just when you thought you had got to grips with the updated Part 36 rules and post Jackson benefits, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee announced it was considering reforms to Part 36.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th September 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The qualified one-way costs shifting provisions under CPR 44.13 and 44.14 were not ultra vires the general discretion of the court on the ordering of costs under section 51(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and although applying to claims for damages for personal injuries brought by a claimant against a defendant, they did not apply to claims for an indemnity or contribution brought by such a defendant against a third party.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
The High Court is at odds over the relationship between budgeting and indemnity costs, after one judge expressly disagreed with the view of another that the costs management order (CMO) should also be the starting point for an assessment of indemnity costs.
Litigation Futures, 1st September 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘For most parties that enter into litigation (save for those on CFAs and some who are legally aided) a win isn’t really a win unless the other side is also ordered to pay your costs. I say most, because certain litigants enter into litigation knowing that come what May their costs will be paid on the indemnity basis. They have the foresight (or more accurately the power) to draft contracts which provide that, in the event of litigation, the other side (often a borrower or a long leaseholder) will indemnify them for all their legal costs irrespective of whether they win or lose.’
NearlyLegal, 31st August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A contractor (the respondent) to which building work had been subcontracted which it had in turn subcontracted to another contractor (the appellant) which undertook to indemnify the respondent against liability for the appellant’s negligence was not prevented by its own negligence from enforcing the indemnity clause.’
WLR Daily, 11th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Undertakings given by solicitors to third parties are strictly enforced. Generally speaking solicitors would expect their professional indemnity insurers to pick up the claim, but this is not always the case.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st May 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Mr Justice Coulson has handed down his lengthy judgment on the costs matters arising from the claim made by Greenwich Millennium Village Limited (“GMVL”). His judgment may prove of particular interest for his consideration of costs issues which arise when, as so often in the TCC, parties seek to pass on liabilities along a contractual chain.’
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 6th May 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘We have been meeting with a number of smaller software suppliers and tech start-ups recently who have been grappling with the challenge of boosting their geographical reach. We use the word ‘challenge’ because (a) there are only 24 hours in a day, (b) smaller businesses tend not to have a raft of sales executives in their employment and (c) it is difficult to achieve global domination when you still want to focus on product development and manufacturing issues.’
Technology Law Update, 11th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘A clause in an agency agreement which dealt with an agent’s entitlement to compensation or an indemnity on termination of the agreement was neither consistent with nor permitted by regulation 17(2) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993.’
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in November.’
Family Law Week, 6th December 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
“A group of 38 British people who developed narcolepsy after receiving the ‘Pandemrix’ swine flu vaccine have launched a legal claim against its manufacturer.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Plans for a £3,000 ‘security bond’ for some ‘high risk’ overseas visitors to the UK are to be abandoned, the Home Office has confirmed.”
BBC News, 3rd November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Professional indemnity insurance (‘PII’) cover for solicitors is notoriously forgiving to policyholders on the issue of non-disclosure.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th October 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A local authority and a finance watchdog are at loggerheads over whether certain expenditure – including the grant of an indemnity to the chief executive to bring a libel counter-claim – was unlawful.”
Local Government Lawyer, 30th September 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
“On 14 June 2013 in Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1643 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson handed down another important judgment on the application of the new costs management rules (in CPR r.3.15- r.3.18), albeit his decision relates to the Costs Management in Mercantile Courts and Technology and Construction Courts – Pilot Scheme (‘PD 51G’). In particular, Coulson J considered (i) the impact of an order for costs on the indemnity basis; (ii) what a party needs to do to seek approval of a revised costs budget; (iii) when a party should make an application for such approval; and (iv) what test the court applies on such an application. Coulson J’s findings are highlighted in bold below.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 25th June 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
ENE Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (No 2): [2012] UKSC 17; [2012] WLR (D) 132
“Following the valid withdrawal, under a time charter, of a vessel with cargo onboard because of non-payment of hire, the shipowners were entitled to be paid the market rate of hire for the period from the notice of withdrawal until the charterers had removed their cargo.”
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the Employers’ Liability Policy Trigger Litigation on 28 March 2012. The appeals of the run-off insurers on the construction of ‘disease contracted’ were dismissed and the appeals of the insureds and Zurich against the construction of ‘sustaining injury’ were allowed. The result is that employers’ liability policies which are written on a ‘sustained’ or ‘contracted’ basis will, in mesothelioma cases, respond by reference to the date of exposure rather than the date of the tumour. The Court was divided on a subsidiary question of causation as to the application of the ‘special rule’ in Fairchild. Lord Phillips would have held that none of the policies responded but the majority was firmly against his view.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 28th March 2012
Source: www.4newsquare.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024