All posts by Practical Law Dispute Resolution

REUTERS | GCS

Despite the prolific number of published articles providing help and guidance in relation to costs budgeting, cases still arise where it is necessary to be reminded about some of the practical measures that can be considered to avoid loss. Reasons for failure to file budgets on time, ensure they cover the work and cost that could reasonably be anticipated or making timely applications for revision can be due to lack of knowledge, lack of experience, failure to utilise available resources or panic when up against a deadline. However, with proper planning and forethought the difficulties can be overcome.

Master McCloud found it necessary to consider a number of issues when deciding upon an application to revise parts of a budget in the case of Thompson v NSL Ltd.

Continue reading

REUTERS | GCS

Every growth industry has its critics, usually those with most to lose. Litigation funding is no different and they will be rubbing their hands with glee at the ongoing Australian review considering capping funders’ returns at 30% of the award. This would have far reaching consequences for the whole industry.

However, a closer look at this particular battle highlights one characterised by rhetoric, ego and self-interest, rather than the main issue at hand: the real value of litigation risks.

Continue reading

REUTERS | GCS

Part 36 rules can be a minefield for practitioners at the best of times, but a recent case has served to demonstrate the need for parties to keep their offers under review throughout proceedings.

The Queen’s Bench Division recently handed down judgment in Reader v SPIE Ltd and another, a case concerning fiduciary duties on a seller during the sale of a business, Garside & Laycock Limited (G&L), by way of a share purchase agreement to SPIE Limited (SPIE).

Of interest to litigators more generally, on appeal Andrew Baker J considered the application of the costs consequences of a Part 36 offer (under CPR 36.17) where that offer is made within 21 days of trial, but the trial does not in fact commence within that period.

Continue reading

Share this post on: