‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during June 2016.’
Family Law Week, 15th July 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Since July 2013, it has been necessary to pay a fee to bring a claim in the employment tribunal. This change was introduced with the goal of relieving the pressure on the taxpayer of meeting the £83m bill for running the Employment Tribunal Service. It was also envisaged that it would encourage parties to consider faster and earlier ways to settle disputes.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB)
‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘What can the recently re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims offer parties and practitioners in this area? Those, and don’t worry you’re not alone, oblivious to its original launch as a pilot scheme in February 2015 may be part of the reason for its re-launch 15 months later. The original scheme apparently saw only two adjudications (hardly a sample sufficient to judge the efficacy of the scheme). The re-launched scheme covers a wider range of professionals, the removal of any limit on the amount of the claim and an attempt to cap the fees of the appointed adjudicator within certain bands depending on the value of the claim.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 29th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Shoppers have been ripped off by as much as £400 each due to unfair chip and pin charges in shops, lawyers preparing a historic class action case against MasterCard have claimed.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘MasterCard is facing a claim of up to £19 billion in damages in a UK collective action over card charges that were passed on to shoppers.’
The Independent, 6th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The High Court has overturned three high-profile costs rulings in which Irwin Mitchell lost the right to recover success fees and insurance premiums from defendants after failing to advise on the 10% uplift in general damages before switching clients from legal aid.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The question of when a conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be assigned from one law firm to another is set for the Court of Appeal, Litigation Futures can report.’
Litigation Futures, 30th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Proportionality has hit the Competition Appeal Tribunal as it capped a defendant’s recoverable costs at £350,000, compared to its budgeted costs of £637,000.’
Litigation Futures, 24th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘”Substantial changes” to the current employment tribunal fee regime are required if an appropriate balance is to be struck between meeting some of the costs of operation and maintaining access to justice, according to an influential committee of MPs.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘MPs have hit out at the government’s approach to increasing court fees, with major changes needed to restore an “acceptable level of access to the employment tribunals”, and also urged ministers not to introduce any more civil court fee rises until there is research into the impact of what has been done to date, particularly on London’s competitiveness as a litigation centre.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘Workers unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice because of new Government court fees, a cross party committee of MPs has warned. Since the new employment tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 there has been a “precipitate drop” of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases being brought, the Commons Justice committee said. It can now cost as much as £1,200 simply to bring a claim.’
The Independent, 20th June 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger has warned that alternative business structures and conditional fee agreements are two ‘concerning’ developments which could pose a threat to lawyers’ ethical duties.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 16th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Two-thirds of litigation lawyers say increased court fees have already deterred clients from commencing proceedings, a survey has found.’
Litigation Futures, 15th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint over an advertisement from a website that claims to help clients recover a “huge amount” of their legal costs, which said that “on average, a solicitor overcharges you by 20%”.’
Legal Futures, 15th June 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The new rules limiting the recovery of the costs of civil court action to a “proportionate” amount may prevent successful parties from recovering costs that would otherwise have been reasonable, a senior costs judge has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025