Assignment of CFAs settled… for now
Solicitors holding pre-2013 conditional fee agreements (CFAs) assigned to them by prior firms breathed a sigh of (at least temporary) relief in early May 2016, following the decision of His Honour Judge Graham Wood QC in the County Court appeal in Jones v Spire Healthcare. Briefly put, a personal injury claimant (Ms Jones) entered into … Continue reading Assignment of CFAs settled… for now
Contingency fees: rare High Court guidance with implications for DBAs?
Contingency fee agreements arise where the solicitor agrees with the client to be paid a percentage share of any damages, rather than being paid on an hourly rate basis (whether conditional or not). They have long been lawful in non-contentious business, and have been permitted in contentious business since the introduction of the Damages Based Agreement Regulations … Continue reading Contingency fees: rare High Court guidance with implications for DBAs?
Mind the gap! E Surv Ltd v Goldsmith Williams Solicitors, the continuing prevalence of the Bowerman duty and evidential difficulties under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
The Court of Appeal has held in E Surv Ltd v Goldsmith Williams Solicitors that the Bowerman duty (a solicitor’s implied duty to notify its lender-client of facts which he discovers “in the course of investigating title… which a reasonably competent solicitor would realise might have a material bearing on the valuation of the lender’s … Continue reading Mind the gap! E Surv Ltd v Goldsmith Williams Solicitors, the continuing prevalence of the Bowerman duty and evidential difficulties under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
The Court of Appeal addresses the approach to costs budgets, with surprising results
Consistency and clarity in the approach of judges to costs budgeting have suffered due to the absence of guidance from the Court of Appeal. However, now that there has been consideration of the correct approach by that court in Sarpd Oil International Limited v Addax Energy SA & another, some may find the guidance surprising.
Solland v Clifford Harris: warehousing litigation an abuse of process
The judgment of Arnold J in Solland v Clifford Harris highlights that unilaterally “warehousing” a claim (that is, putting a claim on hold without intending to pursue it) can amount to an abuse of process, even if a claimant subsequently decides to pursue the claim.
Racing towards indemnity costs?
In Hawksford Trustees v Halliwells LLP, the High Court was asked to consider the difficult question of the proper method of assessing solicitor-client costs which are claimed as damages.
Relief from sanctions: effect of the breach v effect of granting relief
The Court of Appeal, in Mishcon de Reya v Caliendo, dismissed an appeal against an order granting the respondents relief from sanctions (pursuant to CPR 3.9) imposed under the pre-April 2013 costs provisions relating to failures to serve notices of funding arrangements. The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the judge’s exercise … Continue reading Relief from sanctions: effect of the breach v effect of granting relief
Maharaj v Johnson: limitation in flawed transaction claims
In the recent case of Maharaj v Johnson, the Privy Council considered the vexed question of when time begins to run for the purposes of primary limitation in a claim that negligent advice led the claimant to enter into a “flawed transaction”.
Are you being served?: Sloutsker v Romanova and service out of the jurisdiction
In this blog post, I consider the recent judgment by the High Court in Sloutsker v Romanova, which clarifies: The duty of disclosure within the context of an application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The circumstances in which the English jurisdiction might be considered an appropriate forum for litigation. What it takes … Continue reading Are you being served?: Sloutsker v Romanova and service out of the jurisdiction
Swynson v Lowick Rose: recovery of repaid loans
The Court of Appeal recently handed down an important decision on identifying loss in Swynson v Lowick Rose.
Solicitors’ negligence: just because you could doesn’t mean that you should
In one of our monthly guest posts by the members of 4 New Square, Benjamin Wood considers the High Court’s judgment in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP. Benjamin acted for the successful defendant in the claim (instructed by Claire Roake at Mills & Reeve, London).
Budgeting and indemnity costs
Costs budgeting, or rather costs and case management to give it its formal title, has been one of the most contentious and hotly debated aspects of the Jackson reforms. That debate continues, most recently with Lord Justice Jackson’s lecture on the subject on 13 May 2015 and with the setting up of the sub-committee of … Continue reading Budgeting and indemnity costs
