- April 23, 2019
Misconduct in detailed assessment proceedings: Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
This post considers the decision of Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust an appeal to Stewart J from a decision of Master Campbell. It is a case concerned with the mis-certification of a bill of costs in detailed assessment proceedings and is one of only two reported cases post the landmark Court of Appeal case … Continue reading Misconduct in detailed assessment proceedings: Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust →
- January 17, 2019
Costs budgeting: when is a development a “significant” one for the purpose of revising a costs budget?
Paragraph 7.6 of Practice Direction 3E provides that a party “shall revise its budget in respect of future costs upwards or downwards, if significant developments in the litigation warrant such revisions… The court may approve, vary or disapprove the revisions, having regard to any significant developments which have occurred since the date when the previous … Continue reading Costs budgeting: when is a development a “significant” one for the purpose of revising a costs budget? →
- August 17, 2018
How to avoid QOCS: Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd
The Court of Appeal in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd has ruled that, where sums have been paid to a claimant under the schedule to a Tomlin order, CPR 44.14(1) could not apply, as the schedule was not part of the court’s order but merely reflected the parties’ agreement.
- July 2, 2018
Know your costs lawyers from your costs draftsmen
The Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the case of Gempride v Bamrah recently, a case on misconduct in detailed assessment proceedings. The case is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered CPR 44.11 and is essential reading for any solicitor who sub-contracts out costs work to a cost specialist.
- October 3, 2017
Some recent decisions on costs budgeting
The debate as to when and in what circumstances a party can depart from a costs budget rumbles on. As readers will know, the test is whether there is a “good reason” for such a departure.
- April 26, 2017
Recent decisions on the costs consequences of refusing to enter into ADR
In February this year, the High Court overturned the decision of Master James in Briggs v First Choice Holidays and Flights. The case had been seen by many as a high point for paying parties in achieving significant costs reductions as a result of a failure to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
- February 9, 2017
Would you side step costs budgeting if given the chance? A look at the pilot running in the Leeds Chancery Division
The Chancery Division in Leeds is running a pilot for the next six months to enable parties to limit the extent of costs budgeting in any particular case.
- October 6, 2016
Costs budgeting: Love it? Hate it? Or is it time you changed your mind?
At the Costs Law Report Conference 2016 in London last week, Stuart-Smith J gave the key note speech, in which he revealed that when listing a case management and costs management hearing, he allows 10 minutes to accommodate the costs budgeting part of a costs and case management conference (CCMC).
- March 15, 2016
Sugar Hut and discretion as to costs
The Court of Appeal in Sugar Hut v A J Insurance Service has overturned the trial judge’s decision to impose costs consequences akin to the automatic CPR 36 costs consequences on a party who only narrowly beats a CPR 36 offer.
- September 29, 2015
The principle in Re Eastwood lives to fight another day
In May 2015, the Upper Tribunal heard the case of Bakhtiyer v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Judgment was handed down earlier this month. The Upper Tribunal confirmed the principle in Re Eastwood that the costs of the Government Legal Service would be assessed on the same basis as that of a solicitor … Continue reading The principle in Re Eastwood lives to fight another day →
- July 7, 2015
Third party funding: not such a bright idea?
When returns on investment in traditional markets are at an all time low, capital (especially private capital) seeks better returns elsewhere. Pensioners cash in their pensions and dive into the buy-to-let market (their children need to worry about their inheritances if/when that bubble bursts), while more adventurous investors see litigation as a money spinner.