Practical Law

In the recent case of Willers v Joyce and others an application was brought by the winning party against the losing party’s counsel and solicitor following an unsuccessful claim for malicious prosecution.

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 →

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? →

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 →

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.