All posts by Practical Law Dispute Resolution

REUTERS | GCS
January 31, 2022

Why CFA success fees, ATE premiums and funder returns should be recoverable in commercial litigation cases

Since Jackson LJ’s 2010 Review of Civil Litigation Costs (Jackson Review) led to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), it has been taken as read that conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees and after-the-event (ATE) premiums are not recoverable. Calls to repeal the primary legislation have gone largely unnoticed and Part 2 of the Post-Implementation Review of LASPO in 2019 only entrenched this position further by declaring non-recoverability a success in terms of reducing litigation costs.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Stephane Mahe
January 27, 2022

Is divergence inevitable in a post-Brexit legal landscape?

Brexit has an undeniably huge role in shaping our legal system for the future. On 9 December 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down judgment in Tattersall v Seguros Catalana Occidente S.A and Basquille on the long debated ‘Keefe question’. It is important to consider the significance of this judgment and the effect that Brexit will have on such issues moving forward.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Stephane Nitschke
January 24, 2022

The fatal flaw of deceit: Court of Appeal sets aside default judgment obtained by fraud in farming dispute

Making a false representation in particulars of claim in order to obtain default judgment will get you nowhere – the Court of Appeal has confirmed that “fraud unravels all” (the view taken by the Supreme Court in Takhar v Gracefield Developments) when it comes to setting aside such a judgment. The Court of Appeal confirmed in Park v CNH Industrial Capital Europe Ltd (t/a CNH Capital) that even where the deception of the lower court was an operative, not the operative, cause for default judgment, this was sufficient to set the decision aside.

There was also no abuse of process by the deceived party in this scenario. Even though that party had prior knowledge of the evidence, there had been no deliberate decision not to investigate a suspected fraud.

Continue reading →

Share this post on: