Excalibur and third party funders – guidance from the Court of Appeal – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 1st, 2016 in appeals, costs, news, third parties by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down its judgment in the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others, a decision that is of great importance to third party funders and their potential liability for adverse costs.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 18th 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

Arbitrator justified in making losing party pay £2m cost of third-party funding, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted October 6th, 2016 in arbitration, costs, international courts, news, third parties by tracey

‘A defendant whose conduct forced the claimant to seek third-party funding to take its case to arbitration has to pay the £2m owed to the funder following the claim’s success, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 3rd October 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Local authorities’ statutory powers to override third party land rights will apply to a wider range of public schemes, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

‘Local authorities and regeneration bodies can expect greater scrutiny to be placed on their decisions to override third party rights in land on public interest grounds under new UK planning laws that came into effect in the summer.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st September 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court allows recovery of costs of arranging third-party funding – Litigation Futures

Posted September 19th, 2016 in arbitration, costs, news, third parties by tracey

‘The High Court has today upheld the decision of an arbitrator to allow the recovery of the costs of securing third party funding as costs, in what is being hailed as a landmark decision.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th September 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Third-party JR funders must be allowed anonymity – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 26th, 2016 in anonymity, judicial review, news, third parties by sally

‘Third-party funders in judicial review proceedings should be identified to defendants only in exceptional circumstances, the Law Society has said in response to government plans to require anyone contributing more than £3,000 to declare their identities.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 25th August 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Third party rights of direct action against insurers due to come into force – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 29th, 2016 in insolvency, insurance, news, third parties by tracey

‘New rights for third parties to bring direct actions against insurers in the event that an insured party against which they have a claim becomes insolvent will come into force on 1 August 2016.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) – WLR Daily

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) [2016] EWHC 1609 (Ch)

‘Where a party intervenes in an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ordinary a costs order will not be made in the intervener’s favour. The court will only consider departing from its ordinary position if it is satisfied that (1) the intervener’s position was successful, (2) its submission added value to the hearing, and (3) it had not duplicated the respondent’s submissions (paras 10, 12).’

WLR Daily, 7th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Ministry of Justice doubles financial threshold for identifying judicial review backers – Litigation Futures

Posted July 12th, 2016 in consultations, costs, judicial review, legal aid, news, third parties by sally

‘The government has doubled the threshold above which third-party contributors to judicial reviews (JRs) will have to be identified.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 11th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Reform of Judicial Review – official-documents.gov.uk

Posted July 8th, 2016 in consultations, costs, judicial review, press releases, third parties by tracey

‘Following the consultation, the government has set out how it intends for the reforms to be implemented, and is seeking views on one further aspect.’

Full press release

official-documents.gov.uk, 7th July 2016

Source: www.official-documents.gov.uk

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA – WLR Daily

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA [2016] EWHC 1243 (QB)

‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’

WLR Daily, 27th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cavanagh and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – WLR Daily

Cavanagh and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWHC 1136 (QB)

The first and second claimant employees were, it was assumed for present purposes, employed by the defendant employer under civil service terms and conditions and various collective agreements. Under “check-off arrangements” in the employer’s deductions from pay policy, the employees had opted for their subscriptions to the third claimant trade union to be paid by deduction from their salary and paid by the employer to the union. Latterly the check-off arrangements had been included in the employer’s salary policy published on the staff intranet. When the employer ended the check-off arrangements, the claimants brought a claim against it, contending that the employees had a contractual right to insist that the employer continue with the arrangement enforceable by the trade union under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

WLR Daily, 13th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in arbitration, contracts, jurisdiction, law reports, service, third parties by sally

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)

‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Down the Rabbit Hole of Genetic Testing – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The explosion of genetic testing in the last half century has produced unquantifiable benefits, allowing scientists to understand the constitution of genetic disorders and dramatically improve disease diagnosis, avoidance and treatment. Consider the near-eradication of Tay-Sachs, a fatal neurodegenerative disease, since the introduction of screening in the 1970s; the standardisation of newborn testing; and the introduction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for inherited cancer genes.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 19th April 2016

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

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

Sanam v National Crime Agency – WLR Daily

Sanam v National Crime Agency: [2015] EWCA Civ 1234; [2015] WLR (D) 495

‘There was no basis for concluding that a civil recovery order obtained by the National Crime Agency pursuant to Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of property derived from unlawful conduct would violate the rights of an innocent former wife of the criminal under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, even though she would be left without any assets if a recovery order was made.’

WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal rules third-party capture insurer still has to pay solicitors’ costs – Litigation Futures

Posted December 3rd, 2015 in appeals, costs, fees, insurance, news, solicitors, third parties by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has made a major strike against the practice of third-party capture by ordering an insurance company that settled personal injury claims directly with the clients of a law firm to pay the solicitors the costs they would have earned.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 3rd December 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

IPs hit back at Jackson: ending LASPO exemption would create ‘windfall’ for third-party funders – Litigation Futures

Posted October 30th, 2015 in company directors, costs, fees, insolvency, insurance, news, third parties by sally

‘Abolishing the exemption from LASPO for insolvency cases would create a “windfall” for third-party funders, insolvency trade body R3 has argued.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 29th October 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Insurance surgery: Out for the count – New Law Journal

Posted October 29th, 2015 in contracting out, health, insurance, negligence, news, third parties by sally

‘Bridget Tatham follows the rise & risk of public sector outsourcing.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 26th October 2015

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Referral fees in criminal cases could lead to “arrest chasing” – Legal Futures

Posted June 18th, 2015 in barristers, consultations, crime, fees, legal aid, news, solicitors, third parties by sally

‘Removing the ban on referral fees in criminal cases could lead to “arrest chasing” by solicitors, the Bar Council has warned, and result in “as much public opprobrium” as ambulance chasing.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 17th June 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk