‘The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal a High Court decision that found a claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs.’
Litigation Futures, 9th January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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
‘In Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212, the Court of Appeal held that an order staying the matter also stayed the Claimant’s obligation to serve the claim form.
That being the case, the Claimant was not out of time for serving the claim form when he did so within the four month period following the expiry of the stay.’
Zenith PI, 22nd October 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Impecunious road traffic accident claimants who benefit from the rule allowing them to claim full credit hire costs must provide pre-action disclosure of financial records, a circuit judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Judges do not have power to order a solicitor to give a former client copies of documents which are the property of the solicitor, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An unreasonable failure to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury.’
Zenith PI, 1st May 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A judge has refused to hand over historic case documents to a former client claiming to be overcharged by a law firm in the latest blow to costs recovery claims.’
Law Society's Gazette, 28th March 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) serves as a reminder of the court’s approach to the rules on pre-action disclosure and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 act).’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th January 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz and others, Warby J found that the parties to a crash-for-cash conspiracy were guilty of contempt of court.’
Zenith PI Blog, 12th December 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Construction analysis: One year after the second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol) came into force, David Pliener looks at how it has been used in practice. He notes that while it has generally been well-received, the Protocol’s full impact has not been felt yet, and there are still areas where uptake has been slow. Nevertheless, over the past year, indications point to the overall success of the new regime.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 1st October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, (the “Protocol”) is to come into force. This raises the question: what is a ‘debt’? For this Protocol, the only ‘guidance’ provided is on the Information Sheet (Annex 1), “you have received this [notice] because a business believes that you owe it money”. None of the draft or consultation papers provide further guidance or seek to define the term ‘debt’ under English law.’
4 KBW, 22nd September 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘The following article examines the concept of ‘debt’; this article focuses on the purpose, procedure and effects of the Protocol.’
4 KBW, 20th September 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘Until the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) came into force in 1999 solicitors specializing in intellectual property law heralded litigation with an ultimatum called a letter before action. Written in haughty if not insulting terms and accompanied by a humiliating form of undertakings, they were intended to shock the recipient into submission. They rarely achieved the desired result. As often as not they were simply ignored. Occasionally, they were answered by a defiant response. As a result, a lot of actions were launched that could easily have been settled without recourse to litigation.’
NIPC Law, 2nd August 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘It will be important for judges to take a co-ordinated approach as the case law around legal costs and cost budgeting develops, a High Court judge has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal has invited the Law Society to intervene in a highly significant hearing this month in which insurers are trying to recover millions of pounds in RTA claims portal fees from claimant solicitors in the so-called ‘£400 club’.’
Litigation Futures, 9th February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Although a first instance decision of a district judge, the case of Nicole Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Bolton County Court, 15 June 2016, Case number B74YM281) warrants some attention. The defendant was ordered to pay the unsuccessful claimant’s fixed costs on discontinuance because of its failure to comply with the pre-action protocol.’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd August 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Gavin Edmondson Ltd v Haven Insurance Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1230; [2015] WLR (D) 496
‘A solicitors firm which had concluded conditional fee agreements with road traffic victims and had entered those details in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents on the website used by lawyers and insurers in such circumstances was entitled, when the claimants settled their personal injury claims directly with the defendants’ insurers, to recover the fixed costs and other sums payable under the Protocol scheme.’
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The risks of a client deciding to go it alone at the last stage of judicial review proceedings.’
Nearly Legal, 30th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The court can depart from the usual rule in CPR r.38.6(1) that a Claimant who has discontinued their claim is liable for the costs which a Defendant has incurred and, alternatively, order that the Defendant pay a part of the Claimant’s costs.’
Zenith PI Blog, 18th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘CPR 63.20 (2) requires those bringing claims in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) including the small claims track to state whether they have complied with paragraph 7.1(1) and Annex A (paragraph 2) of the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct). If they don’t the defendant has an extra 28 days in which to file his or her defence under CPR 63.22 (3). But if you actually turn to the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct you will find that the old paragraph 7 and Annex A aren’t there any more.’
NIPC Law, 6th May 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024