Mainetti UK ordered to pay £81,600 over conveyor worker’s injuries – BBC News
“A firm has been ordered to pay £81,600 after a worker was injured when her hair and scarf became tangled in machinery.”
BBC News, 17th January 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: costs
Recovery of costs in service charge disputes in the LVT – Tanfield Chambers
“The LVT has no general power to award costs other than when an application is dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process or a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. In such circumstances the costs are capped at £500: para 10 of Sch 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (‘CLRA’) 2002.”
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2013
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
High Court wrestles with costs consequences after part 36 offers are accepted out of time – Litigation Futures
“Part 36 continues to trouble the courts, with two rulings recently involving parties seeking to overturn the usual costs consequences of accepting an offer after the usual 21 days.”
Litigation Futures, 10th January 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Defamation and privacy claimants will not have to pay other side’s costs, Government confirms – OUT- Law.com
“Members of the public faced with the prospect of bringing a claim for defamation
or breach of privacy against a large media organisation will in the future be
protected against having to pay the other side’s costs if the case is lost, the
Government has announced.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th December 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Judges should have extra support in litigation costs reforms, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
“OPINION: A seemingly attractive plan to make judges responsible for predicting the cost of court action is not the best way to encourage the accurate prediction of costs, but it is better than nothing.”
OUT-LAW.com, 17th December 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Brown-Quinn and another v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd and another – WLR Daily
“A legal expenses insurer could seek to limit the level of costs and expenses payable under an insurance policy in respect of a solicitor’s services for which it was liable to the insured provided that the freedom to choose a lawyer guaranteed by Council Directive 87/344/EEC, as transposed into English law by regulation 6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, was not rendered meaningless.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Insurers celebrate ruling on BTE non-panel rates – Litigation Futures
“Legal expenses insurers have welcomed this week’s Court of Appeal ruling about the rates they have to pay non-panel firms.”
Litigation Futures, 14th December 2012
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Injured feelings: Jackson reforms – Law Society’s Gazette
“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
Light on Line Ltd v Zumtobel Lighting Ltd [2012] EWHC 3376 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 373
Light on Line Ltd v Zumtobel Lighting Ltd [2012] EWHC 3376 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 373
“Service of a redacted insurance certificate as proof of “the amount of the premium paid or payable” in a claim for an additional liability on a detailed assessment of costs was sufficient to comply with paragraph 32.5(2)(c) of the Costs Practice Direction supplementing CPR Pts 43–48.”
WLR Daily, 29th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Phillips & Co (a firm) v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd – WLR Daily
Phillips & Co (a firm) v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1591; [2012] WLR (D) 372
“A solicitors’ claim for costs, billed but not yet fixed by assessment or agreement, fell within the phrase ‘debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim’ in section 29(5)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court overturns ruling striking out £60,000 ATE premium for redacted insurance certificate – Litigation Futures
“The High Court has overturned a cost judge’s ruling that a redacted after-the-event (ATE) insurance certificate did not comply with the Costs Practice Direction (CPD) because it did not show what premiums would have been payable had the case concluded earlier than it did.”
Litigation Futures, 6th December 2012
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Divorce battle lands pair with £1.3m legal bill – Daily Telegraph
“A husband ran up a £500,000 legal bill in a bitter divorce dispute he could not afford, the High Court ruled.”
Daily Telegraph, 5th December 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Premier Models wins legal action against rogue booker – Daily Telegraph
“Premier Model Management Ltd, the former agency of Naomi Campbell, has today won its High Court legal action against male model turned booker John Bruce.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th November 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Confusion over JR clampdown – LegalVoice
“Lawyers are baffled by some parts of the government’s outline for judicial review reform, and warn that other parts could ‘endanger compliance with EU law’, writes Elizabeth Davidson.”
LegalVoice, 29th November 2012
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others; Zodiac Seats UK Ltd and another v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd; Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another – WLR Daily
“A party that referred the court to a term of an offer made by it pursuant to CPR Pt 36 waived its without prejudice privilege and could not prevent the remaining terms of the offer from being referred to the court.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Down the rabbit-hole: costs, the Comms Act and the Competition Commission – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers
“Where an appeal to the Tribunal under section 192 of the Communications Act 2003 gives rise to specified ‘price control matters’, the CAT must hive them off for determination by the Competition Commission: see section 193(1) and SI 2004/2068. The CAT is then bound by section 193(6) to follow the Commission’s determination, except ‘to the extent that the Tribunal decides, applying the principles applicable on an application for judicial review, that the determination of the Competition Commission is a determination that would fall to be set aside on such an application’: section 193(7).”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 27th November 2012
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
Rich crooks net vast legal aid sums – BBC News
“Dozens of super-rich criminals – some worth tens of millions – have received vast sums in legal aid despite their illicit fortunes, an investigation has revealed.”
BBC News, 26th November 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Hollister Inc and another v Medix Ostomy Supplies Ltd – WLR Daily
Hollister Inc and another v Medix Ostomy Supplies Ltd: [2012] EWCA Civ 1419; [2012] WLR (D) 327
“When taking an account of costs on a normal basis under English law following infringement of a trade mark, the court was not required or permitted to assess damage caused to the claimant by the infringement nor to embark on a general inquiry into proportionality of the remedy nor to weigh factors which would point to a higher or a lower award. When the court calculated net profits it was not permissible for a defendant to allocate a proportion of its general overheads to an infringing activity.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Environmental and Planning Law Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street
Environmental and Planning Law Newsletter (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, November 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
The Procter & Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another – WLR Daily
“Although a monetary claim was the paradigm contemplated by CPR Pt 36, Part 36 was not confined to that. Rule 36.2(2)(c) did not mandate that the claimant had to seek costs and make payment of them a condition of his offer. The substance of the claim, and which of the parties was seeking to establish liability and which to oppose it, was one of the circumstances to be considered by the court in determining whether it would be unjust to make orders for indemnity costs and interest on costs for the purposes of rule 36.14(3).”
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
