‘The High Court has refused a personal injury firm relief from sanctions after an excoriating analysis of its non-compliance with court orders.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 13th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
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
‘Masood Ahmed & Claire Pennells consider pre-action protocols & the Briggs online court.’
New Law Journal, 19th May 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘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).’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th May 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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
‘In the well-known case of Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich (LTL 24/5/2001) Gibson LJ said:
‘The overriding objective (of the CPR) is that the court should deal with cases justly. That includes, so far as is practicable, ensuring that each case is dealt with not only expeditiously but also fairly. Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party or parties caused by the amendment can be compensated in costs, and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice is not significantly harmed…’.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th April 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘It is trite that a court will carefully scrutinise the parties’ behaviour when assessing costs in civil disputes. There is now a rich body of case law which provides judicial guidance on the courts’ general approach in assessing unreasonable behaviour when considering whether to make adverse costs orders. Further judicial guidance on assessing unreasonable behaviour has recently been given by the Court of Appeal in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269. In that case the court provided important guidance on the ‘unreasonable behaviour’ test for ordering costs in the small claims court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th May 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has upheld a ruling that disapplied qualified one-way costs-shifting (QOCS) under the little-used exception relating to “mixed” claims, and in what is said to be the first case of its type, where the personal injury (PI) element was found to be a relatively minor part of the wider claim.’
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The “unreasonable conduct” test for ordering costs in the small claims court is similar to that for wasted costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled, but said it would not want litigants to be “too easily deterred” by the risk of an adverse costs award.’
Litigation Futures, 18th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that it is was not unreasonable conduct for the purposes of r.13(1)(b), Tribunal Procedure Rules, for a landlord to seek to rely on an agreement that service charges were payable, even if that agreement was subsequently determined to be void. Nor did the landlord’s failure to mediate amount to unreasonable conduct in circumstances where the prospects of a reaching an agreement were slight and the costs of mediation likely to be disproportionate. It also held that orders pursuant to s.20C, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, should not treat participating leaseholders differently from one another on the basis of their involvement in proceedings. The focus should be on the landlord’s degree of success regardless of each individual leaseholder’s involvement.’
Arden Chambers, 3rd March 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Sir David Eady J delivered a judgment on 30 March in the case of Mohamed Ali Harrath v Stand for Peace Limited and Samuel Westrop [2017] EWHC 653 (QB) (available here) in which he held that a claimant is entitled to recover damages that exceed the statement of value included in the claim form.’
4 KBW, 30th March 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘Every time we think the courts might have given defendants in adjudication enforcement proceedings slightly more latitude in raising their dissatisfaction with an adjudicator’s decision, the court brings us back down to earth with a bump and reminds us that, in fact, no matter how hard done by our clients feel, they will have to “pay now and argue later”, save in the rarest of cases.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th March 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Expert witnesses giving concurrent evidence – or ‘hot-tubbing’ – should be the default position in the Mercantile Court and Technology and Construction Court (TCC), the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has suggested.’
Litigation Futures, 4th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A community-led recycling organisation has submitted a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority claiming that a county council’s contract with an incinerator company breaks competition law.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The issue of costs budgets continues to occupy court time with The Honourable Mrs Justice Carr DBE the latest, and most senior, judge to give consideration to what, if any, weight an approved costs budget had when the bill of costs was the subject of a detailed assessment.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘What happens if a party to arbitral proceedings decides to commence an arbitration claim in the High Court (CPR part 62) but subsequently files and serves a notice of discontinuance? Will the claim be automatically discontinued with the usual cost consequences? And what approach will the court take if the other side decides to apply to have the notice set aside? These issues were considered in National Iranian Oil Company v (1) Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd (2) Crescent Gas Corporation Lid [2016] EWHC 1900 (Comm).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th March 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024