Anyone working in the costs world, where your client is a receiving party, will no doubt understand one of the core considerations in all cases. What is an appropriate amount to have on account of your bill? We have had a number of judgments in recent times which have given guidance on this point. Mars UK v Teknowledge Ltd has been widely used to secure payments of two thirds of receiving parties’ costs. Continue reading
Here I deal with a number of decisions concerning procedural issues of filing and service in relation to insolvency proceedings. In particular, the Courts Electronic Filing System (CE-File) is a source of considerable confusion. Continue reading
As authorities take unprecedented measures to help control the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), working from home using online technologies has become an abrupt but necessary fact of life for many. Adaption to disruption is becoming the new normal and the UK courts are no exception. Continue reading
Legal professional privilege (LPP) is once again in the headlines, following a series of recent high profile decisions. In January 2020, the Court of Appeal in Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd rejected an attempt to circumvent LPP by a party that alleged LPP had been waived. Then in February, the Court of Appeal in Sports Direct International Plc v Financial Reporting Council rejected an attempt to extend an exception to LPP and reaffirmed that where LPP applies, it can only be overridden in very limited circumstances where there is express statutory authority demonstrating Parliament’s intention to do so. More recently, in March, the High Court in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP reaffirmed that fraud is one of the very limited number of exceptions that permit the court to order disclosure of materials that would otherwise have been protected by LPP. Continue reading
In Boas and others v Aventure International Ltd, HHJ Hodge QC, sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, allowed an appeal against a recorder’s county court judgment about the exact location of a disputed boundary, in rare circumstances where the recorder had failed to consider the full effect of specific and clear photographic evidence, and further failed to outline the correct factual implications from that evidence. The High Court was therefore left to examine the principles surrounding appeals against a judge’s findings of fact. Continue reading
Until the indemnity principle disappears, there will always be the need to make sure that the retainer between solicitor and client is clear. This was again highlighted in the recent judgment of Deputy Master Friston in Anthony v Collins. Continue reading
It has been clear for some time that a third party who funds litigation on commercial terms may be ordered to pay the costs of the winning defendant if the funded claim is unsuccessful. What was less clear, until recently, was the extent of that liability, and in particular whether it is subject to a fixed limit in the form of the so-called “Arkin cap”. Continue reading
In the recent decision of Civil Aviation Authority v R Jet2, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the dominant purpose test, previously understood by some to be the sole domain of litigation privilege, also applies to legal advice privilege (LAP). The decision means that only those communications created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice will be protected by LAP. We consider some of the practical implications of this decision below. Continue reading
I am grateful to Master Rowley for highlighting the issues herein to me.
Further to an amendment to PD 51O of the CPR (the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme), the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) is now using the CE-File electronic court file. For legal representatives, this has become mandatory with effect from 20 January 2020. Continue reading
When Kain Knight was in its infancy 40-something years ago, there were no such things as points of dispute. The protagonists would arrive for a taxation, as detailed assessment was then known, largely in ignorance of the arguments which would be raised. With nothing electronic in those days, the receiving party’s files would be lodged in advance for the taxing master’s clerk to read. That would involve a painstaking counting up of letters and the reading of attendance notes, with any discrepancies being tagged for the master’s attention. The taxation would then proceed at a leisurely pace with a red pen being wielded to disallow any items which had not been necessary and proper for the attainment of justice. Quaint though it may seem, the system worked pretty well. Continue reading