London Borough of Havering (and others) v Persons Unknown (and others) [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB) was a case heard in the Queen’s Bench Division in October 2021 and relates to injunctions and abuse of process. It is always tempting when an injunction has been sought and an interim order granted that an applicant sees an interim order as the end of the matter. After all, the respondent has been forced to cease doing whatever it was that was abhorrent to the applicant. However, as most practitioners understand, under CPR 25 the interim injunction is only the beginning of the process.
Failure to promptly pursue proceedings to a final hearing after obtaining interim injunction may be abuse of process
2022: all change for civil litigators
In October this year, civil litigators will be introduced to fixed recoverable costs in virtually all civil claims valued at £100,000 or less, and this is likely to be the biggest culture change in their careers.
My view is that we should expect £100,000 to become £250,000 within five years.
In my recent experience many non-personal injury lawyers are blissfully unaware of this impending, major change, which presents opportunities as well as challenges.
Attempting to recover the shortfall in solicitor and own client costs: a win for the consumer?
Background
The case of BCX v DTA concerned a claimant who incurred a brain injury in a road traffic accident. The case settled for £1.3 million in damages and was an uneventful case with no issues regarding conduct of either party. The costs were presented to the defendant for £424,977 and were agreed for £330,000. This judgment came about due to the claimant’s solicitor seeking to recover the ‘shortfall’ from the claimant of £159,758 which included the success fee and after the event (ATE) premium.