Defendant Secures non-party Costs order against Credit Hire Organisation – Park Square Barristers

‘In this Judgment handed down last week, the Court considered the potential for credit hire companies, who were not parties to the litigation, to be the subject of costs orders. The Appellant car hire company was the subject of such a non-party costs order at first instance and appealed to the High Court. The decision is one which anyone involved in credit hire should be aware of.

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 29th June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Strike out of Claim due to Solicitor’s failure to comply with Court Orders – Park Square Barristers

‘In Reece Gladwin v Adrian Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) the Court was concerned with an appeal by the Defendant in a road traffic accident claim against a decision to grant the Claimant relief from sanctions, following late service of the Claimant’s witness evidence.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 23rd June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Nicholas Siddall on Employment Tribunal Costs: New Guidance – Littleton Chambers

Posted July 5th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, employment tribunals, judgments, news by sally

‘Nicholas Siddall analyses the recent judgment of the EAT in Swissport v Exley & Ors [2017] UKEAT/007/16 (Slade J) in which he successfully appeared and the interesting observations therein made by the EAT as to the correct approach to assessing costs in the Employment Tribunal.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 30th June 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Is an RTA Insurer Liable for an Unidentified Defendant? – Park Square Barristers

‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Media litigators unhappy with procedure and costs budgeting – Litigation Futures

‘Lawyers and other users of the new media and communications list are unhappy with how the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) apply to the field, and particularly costs budgeting, according to the outcome of a consultation launched by Mr Justice Warby.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 3rd July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule committee opts for straightforward approach to hot-tubbing – Litigation Futures

Posted June 27th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, expert witnesses, news by sally

‘Concurrent expert evidence – known as hot-tubbing – should only be carried out in the “classic” manner where experts are sworn and give evidence at the same time, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has decided.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 27th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Drawing the Line: case management and allegations of judicial bias in the family courts – Family Law Week

‘Jennifer Youngs and Vondez Phipps, pupil barristers at 42 Bedford Row, summarise the circumstances in which judicial conduct at a case management hearing might form the basis of an application for recusal, and provide guidance to practitioners as to the manner in which such an application might be made.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 22nd June 2017

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Solicitors’ LLP not a litigant in person when acting for itself in proceedings, Court of Appeal says – Litigation Futures

‘A law firm LLP which acted for itself in legal proceedings is not a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has held.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Costs: Appeal court backs Merrix stance on budget status – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 22nd, 2017 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, proportionality by sally

‘An approved budget cannot be re-opened by a costs judge at detailed assessment unless there is “good reason” to do so, the Court of Appeal held today in a much-awaited ruling in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 21st June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Revealed: Jackson’s fixed fees pilot to cap costs at £80k – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 21st, 2017 in civil justice, civil procedure rules, costs, judges, news, pilot schemes by sally

‘Pointers for the potential level of fixed costs for civil claims have been revealed on the eve of a pilot scheme to test how the idea will work.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 20th June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Rule committee should look at gap in QOCS exception, says High Court judge – Litigation Futures

Posted June 20th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee may need to address a hole in the exception from qualified one-way costs-shifting (QOCS) that meant defendants in a personal injury claim could not seek their costs because service of the claim had been set aside, rather than struck out, a High Court judge has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 19th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Judge punishes firm that placed ‘scant importance’ on court orders – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 15th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, delay, law firms, news, striking out by sally

‘The High Court has refused a personal injury firm relief from sanctions after an excoriating analysis of its non-compliance with court orders.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Claimant firm castigated for “procedural chaos” that saw case struck out – Litigation Futures

‘A claimant law firm that allowed a straightforward and relatively low-value road traffic accident claim to descend into “procedural chaos” has seen it struck out by the High Court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule 44. 11 – Court’s powers in relation to misconduct – 4 KBW

‘Part 44 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/262) was re-enacted on 1st April 2013 and concerns the court’s powers in relation to misconduct. incur Where a party (a) fails to comply with a court rule in assessment or summary proceedings, or (b) acts unreasonably or improperly before or during proceedings the court may disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed or order the party at fault or that party’s legal representative to pay costs which that party or legal representative has caused any other party to incur. The misconduct extends to the legal representative of a party as well as to the party personally and includes both summary assessment and detailed assessment proceedings and refers to any failure to comply with the provisions of Part 47 and any direction, rule, practice direction or court order.’

Full Story

4 KBW, 2nd June 2017

Source: www.4kbw.net

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, law reports, third parties by sally

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Online courts take the stage – New Law Journal

Posted May 31st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, courts, electronic filing, news by sally

‘Masood Ahmed & Claire Pennells consider pre-action protocols & the Briggs online court.’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 19th May 2017

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Mercantile courts to trial fixed costs from later this year – OUT-LAW.com

Posted May 24th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, courts, judges, news, pilot schemes by sally

‘A fixed costs pilot scheme could get underway in the mercantile courts by the end of this year, according to minutes from recent meetings of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC).’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Court of Appeal backs claimant solicitors in “£400 club” case – Litigation Futures

‘Solicitors who received the £400 stage 1 fixed-costs payment due under the original version of the RTA protocol do not have to repay the money even though no action was then taken on their cases, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Disclosure and production in construction cases – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, construction industry, disclosure by sally

‘The evolution of the CPR in the wake of the Jackson reforms included the well-known introduction of the “menu” of disclosure options at CPR 31.5(7). The net effect was to promote, as appropriate and applicable, a movement away from well-established “standard” disclosure to a more tailored approach. With the accompanying provisions of CPR 31 and its Practice Directions, the new approach to disclosure was designed to force parties (and the courts) to consider disclosure and production (and the best approach to adopt) at a very early stage.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 5th May 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Staying proceedings against “a necessary and proper party”: A pragmatic approach – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, jurisdiction, news, stay of proceedings by sally

‘English courts are averse to the risk of parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions. For this reason, where an English defendant is correctly sued in England, foreign domiciled defendants who are necessary and proper parties to the claim are commonly brought into the English court’s jurisdiction.’

Full story (PDF)

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd May 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk