‘A costs judge has emphasised the need for solicitors to plan their litigation so as to ensure that their costs are proportionate, after slashing a £72,000 bill for a low-value clinical negligence case by two-thirds.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Before the Jackson reforms, the relationship between proportionality and additional liabilities was clearly defined. Section 11 of the Costs Practice Direction in force before 1 April 2013 provided:
“11.5 In deciding whether the costs claimed are reasonable and (on a standard basis assessment) proportionate, the court will consider the amount of any additional liability separately from the base costs…
“11.9 A percentage increase will not be reduced simply on the ground that, when added to base costs, which are reasonable and (where relevant) proportionate, the total appears disproportionate.”’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A court faced with a bill of costs that straddles the Jackson reforms should consider both the pre and post April 2013 costs when deciding whether it is proportionate, but ignore any additional liabilities, a regional costs judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 20th February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Hot off the presses comes the first of the Court of Appeal’s two forays into data protection law this term: Dawson-Damer v Tayor Wessing LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 74. It is an important decision and one well worth reading, particularly while waiting for round 2 (which has some overlaps) in Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens / Deer v University of Oxford (likely to be handed down in the next month or so).’
Panopticon, 16th February 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Suppose you publish a statement about me to which I object. Can I sue you for both defamation and data protection breaches based on the same set of facts? Or should that sort of ‘doubling up’ be prohibited as a disproportionate attempt to achieve the same objective in different ways?’
Panopticon, 27th January 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘City lawyers have warned Lord Justice Jackson that imposing fixed costs on commercial litigation would encourage “England’s competitors” at a time of uncertainty caused by Brexit.’
Litigation Futures, 25th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In his final report, Lord Justice Jackson said: “Disproportionate costs do not become proportionate because they were necessary. In my view, that disproportionate element of the costs cannot be saved, even if the individual items within it were both reasonable and necessary”.’
Litigation Futures, 17th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The UK is leading a Europe-wide “race to the bottom” with Orwellian counter-terrorism measures that seriously threaten human rights, according to a comparative survey of security laws by Amnesty International.’
The Guardian, 17th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court has sent another warning message to litigants that they should expect to face costs penalties for unreasonable conduct. In Barkhuysen v Hamilton, published just before Christmas, Mr Justice Warby said the claimant was entitled to more than budgeted costs due to how the case was handled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th January 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Claire Molyneux, Senior Associate at Mills & Reeve LLP, considers an interesting review and reiteration by the Court of Appeal of the approach to be taken in relocations of an internal nature.’
Family Law Week, 24th November 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Mr C claimed that he was injured as a result of a fall in a pub in November 2012. Proceedings were issued by Mr C four days before limitation expired in November 2015. The Statement of Value on the Claim Form limited the claim to £10,000 and the relevant court fee of £455 was paid.’
Park Square Barristers, 17th October 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
Regina (Drax Power Ltd and another) v HM Treasury and another [2016] EWCA Civ 1030
‘The claimants who were renewable source electricity generators brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the decision of the Government, announced in the Budget statement on 8 July 2015 and to take effect on 1 August 2015, to remove the exemption for renewable source electricity (“RSE”) from the Climate Change Levy (“CCL”), an environmental tax levied on electricity, gas, solid fuels and liquefied petroleum gas supplied to business and the public sector. Use by domestic consumers was excluded from the CCL. Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC permitted member states to apply exemptions or reductions in tax to electricity of renewable origin, and article 3 of the Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC obliged them to ensure by 2020 at least 15% of all energy came from renewable sources. The removal of the exemption was provided in section 49 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2015, amending paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000. The judge dismissed the claimants’ claim for judicial review, holding that (1) the exemption fell within the scope of European Union law; (2) the claimants had failed to establish an express or inferred assurance that the Government had promoted a legitimate expectation not to withdraw the RSE exemption, that there was no basis for the contention that there had to be a two-year time limit for any withdrawal and that a prudent and circumspect operator should not have inferred that the exemption would not be removed without such a time limit; and (3) on the evidence the exemption’s removal had been justified in the public interest and, notwithstanding its evident harm to the claimants’ private interests and right to property in the form of concluded contracts to supply companies, came within the appropriate margin of discretion.’
WLR Daily, 21st October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A legal challenge to the government’s decision to end the climate change levy (CCL) exemption for renewable source electricity with only 24 days’ notice has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th October 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In July 2015 the government announced that it was removing a subsidy for renewable energy. Its decision in fact was to take away the exemption that renewable source electricity enjoyed from a tax known as the climate change levy. We have covered previous episodes in the renewables saga on the UKHRB in various posts.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th October 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Over the past 3 years family lawyers, social workers, judges and magistrates have got themselves into a fair old spin over four short words. The words are “Nothing else will do” and they appeared, for the first time, in three of the judgments of the five Supreme Court Justices who presided over the case of Re B in 2013…’
FLBA National Conference, Keynote Address, 22nd October 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Fiona McDonald was a private sector tenant. The landlords were her parents who had purchased the property by obtaining a secured loan from a private company. They fell into arrears of the monthly payments, and the company sought possession pursuant to a s.21(4) Housing Act 1988 (‘HA 1988’) notice. The arrears were not substantial, but they had persisted for some time.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th August 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a very recent appeal against a decision to deregister a school whose curriculum centred around the Muslim faith, the First Tier Tribunal has attempted to apply Article 9. It appears, however, to have got it wrong.’
Education Blog, 25th August 2016
Source: www.education11kbw.com
‘A man who must notify police 24 hours before he has sex has lost his legal battle to have the restriction lifted.’
BBC News, 19th August 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Four asylum seekers, namely three unaccompanied minors and one disabled adult, were in “the jungle” – the (increasingly permanent) temporary refugee and migrant camp in Calais – since October 2015. Having fled from war-torn Syria, they were trying to join their siblings in the UK. The problem was that the French system for processing asylum claims under EU rules would involve considerable delays and the evidence showed that the conditions in the camp were wholly inadequate: these children experienced physical violence and their medical needs were unmet. So they ignored the EU rules and issued a claim in the UK.’
UK Human Right Blog, 8th August 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Twin doses of dishonesty in the Supreme Court, last month. Both raised dilemmas for the SC trying to steer a principled way (in different circumstances) towards determining the cost of lying.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024