“Dispute Resolution analysis: When can solicitors who failed to obtain ATE insurance, become parties
to the litigation for the purpose of cost orders? Stephen Innes, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers
looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Heron v TNT.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 14th May 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“Morshead Mansions has been involved in a quite astonishing amount of litigation. Bailii throws up 13 hits, cases in the LVT, Lands Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal. It’s really must be the most awful burden on all those involved. And now, there is another case to add to the list, Di Marco v Morshead Mansions Ltd [2013] EWHC 1068 (Ch).”
NearlyLegal, 14th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has hit out at lengthy and complex skeleton arguments, describing them as the ‘bane’ of commercial litigation and warning that failing to comply with the practice directions on them will result in costs sanctions.”
Litigation Futures, 8th May 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“‘The budgeting of multi-track litigation is the most important of costs reforms that lawyers should prepare for’ advises Professor Dominic Regan, the leading expert in civil litigation (‘Not the end of the story?’). So, how should we—judges and professional civil litigators— ‘prepare’ now that the Jackson reforms are a reality? The short answer is CPD Training: Chapter 40 and Recommendations 89 and 90 of the Jackson Report (Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, December 2009).”
New Law Journal, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“As I mentioned in “Intellectual Property Litigation – the Funding Options” 10 April 2013, it was possible until the 31 March 2013 for a litigant to enter an agreement with his or her solicitors and counsel known as a conditional fee agreement (‘CFA’) whereby the lawyers would look to the other side for payment not only of their assessed costs but also of an uplift known as a success fee and the premium for insurance against their own and the other side’s costs in case of failure known as after-the-event (‘ATE’) insurance if they won the case or obtained a satisfactory settlement. As I also mentioned in that article, it is still possible to enter a CFA but any success fee and ATE insurance premium must now be paid by the successful party – usually out of any damages or accountable profits he or she may receive.”
NIPC Law, 4th May 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“It is understandable that so much attention has been directed at the recent costs and funding changes. However, the reach of Jackson is far greater. Any step or process has an inevitable cost attached to it and now is the time to look at how the disclosure process will change under the new regime.”
New Law Journal, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“In ‘part-payment’ for the loss of recoverability of the CFA success fee, Lord Justice Jackson gave Claimants a 10% uplift on general damages, which was enacted in rather peculiar fashion by the Court of Appeal in Simmons v Castle by means that can only be described as ‘judicial legislating’.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Why compromise? Increasingly in civil litigation there are no winners — not even the lawyers, following the review and implementation of Sir Rupert Jackson’s report into costs. The question is rapidly being re-phrased as ‘Why litigate?'”
OUP Blog, 27th April 2013
Source: www.blog.oup.com
“As of 1 April 2013, standard disclosure is no longer the default provision in most multi-track cases. With disclosure often being the most expensive and time consuming part of the litigation process, this should be welcome news to litigants and solicitors alike. The recent decision in West African Gas Pipeline Company Limited v Willbros Global Holdings Inc. [2012] EWHC 396 (TCC) highlighted the significant issues encountered in the disclosure process, especially in high value claims involving e-disclosure. The new rules aim to tackle these problems by introducing stricter case management in the disclosure process.”
New Law Journal, 26th April 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“What is the test the Court should apply in deciding whether an application is ‘totally without merit’? The question is prompted by the Lord Chancellor’s announcement on 23 April 2013 that he will press ahead with plans to reform judicial review procedure to target ‘weak, frivolous and unmeritorious cases’. A key change will be to give judges of the Administrative Court, when refusing permission to apply for judicial review on the papers, the power to certify a claim as ‘totally without merit’ (TWM), thus depriving the claimant of the right to renew the application before the court at an oral hearing.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2013
Surce: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The case of the Ikarian Reefer 1993 2 LILR 68, 81-82 is still the definitive case in respect of the duties and role of an expert witness and the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999 was in part designed to reinforce that. In 2000 HHJ Toulmin further refined the definition in Anglo Group plc v Winther Brown & Co Ltd but in the last 10 or so years we have slipped back into old ways with partisan experts being allowed to provide wide ranging reports and encouraged by the parties to give opinions outside their actual remit.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th April 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“‘We will amend at trial’ was one of the most common phrases in legal parlance. No more. It is evident on several fronts that the days of belated change, even well before trial, are over. I would go so far as to say that a practitioner failing to act at the earliest possible opportunity is now looking at a potential negligence claim. The robust new attitude demonstrated by Lord Justice Jackson and his cohorts has been applied to pleadings, experts and joinder.”
New Law Journal, 18th April 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“In his monthly column, James Bickford Smith considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nelson’s Yard Management Company and others v Eziefula [2013] EWCA Civ 235 and how a failure to respond to pre-action correspondence can justify departure from the default rules on costs following discontinuance.”
Full story (PDF)
Littleton Chambers,
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“The 1st of April 2013 marks the implementation of a swathe of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules as part of the implementation of the ‘Jackson Report’ into civil procedure and funding. The aim of the report, in the words of Jackson, L. J. himself, is ‘to promote access to justice at proportionate cost’.”
The Barristers’ Hub, 5th April 2013
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
“In all of the furore surrounding LASPO and the very real concerns about funding, it seems that very little attention has been paid to the significant changes to the CPR which will come into force on 1st April 2013. This is not an article about funding, legal aid, CFAs, DBAs, or even QOCS. Instead it is intended to provide an overview and guidance on the amendments being made to the CPR.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 28th March 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
The Application of the Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (PDF)
Speech by Master of the Rolls
District Judges’ Annual Seminar, 22nd March 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Unlike the general power provided by CPR 44.3, the costs consequences of Pt 36 do not lie in the discretion of the court. The court must apply them unless it considers it “unjust” to do so.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th February 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“There will be another statutory instrument (SI) next month to tidy up the one published last week with changes to the Civil Procedure Rules, after a warning that the new rule on proportionality could affect millions of pounds worth of work already done by solicitors.”
Litigation Futures, 18th February 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Controversy still rages over whether the Jackson reforms are a coherent set of proposals that will rebalance a system where claims and costs are out of control, or if they represent an assault on access to justice for people whom ‘no win, no fee’ represents the only hope of redress for a wrong inflicted on them.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th December 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.gov.uk
“It seemed a fairly straightforward hearing – a pre-trial review in an anti-social behaviour possession claim prior to a one-day trial at the end of December – with both my opponent and I agreeing that the matter was ready to proceed.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 30th December 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025