The importance of filing an N260
In the recent case of R (Kuznetsov) v London Borough of Camden, both the claimant and defendant parties fell foul of the rules for filing a form N260: Statement of Costs (summary assessment), and paid the penalty accordingly. So, when should you file an N260?
Arguments on the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17: Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh
By way of background, the claim in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh related to a medical negligence matter and centres around the alleged negligent treatment of a Baker’s cyst. The claimant, Christopher Morgan, instructed Irwin Mitchell and entered into a conditional fee … Continue reading Arguments on the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17: Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh
Precedent H guidance notes: how much guidance do they provide?
The introduction of costs budgeting in April 2013 filled many practitioners with a feeling of horror. While it is fair to say that seven years in to the process, we have got to grips with it, there are still some elements of costs budget preparation that cause confusion.
Interim payments: I v Hull & East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and RXK v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Anyone working in the costs world, where your client is a receiving party, will no doubt understand one of the core considerations in all cases. What is an appropriate amount to have on account of your bill? We have had a number of judgments in recent times which have given guidance on this point. Mars … Continue reading Interim payments: I v Hull & East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and RXK v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Failure to comply or not continuing with the relevant protocol: consequences… what consequences?
Everyone has played Monopoly and enjoyed the cash bonus for passing GO! How about receiving your cash bonus for failing to comply? Well CPR 45.24 allows you to do just that.
The ongoing saga of fixed costs and consent orders: Adelekun v Lai Ho
It seems a year is a long time in costs jurisprudence. In July 2018, I wrote a piece for this blog which explored the case of Bratek v Clark-Drain Limited. In that case, the court considered the question of whether it was possible for fixed costs to be avoided if the consent order agreed at … Continue reading The ongoing saga of fixed costs and consent orders: Adelekun v Lai Ho
Unintended consequences: protected parties and approval of costs
Since the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) reforms in 2013, the end (for the most part) of additional liabilities being recoverable between the parties has required practitioners to adapt to seeking these costs from their client. Whilst in the majority of cases this has not proved to be … Continue reading Unintended consequences: protected parties and approval of costs
Separate ways or two become one? QOCS in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and behalf of the Estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh
The issue in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh related to the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17 (qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)).
The year of the e-bill: a reflection on the introduction of the electronic bill of costs in 2018 and a look forward to the automated future of legal costs
After a voluntary pilot period and a delayed implementation date, the electronic bill of costs was formally introduced in April 2018. With it came a general confusion and steep learning curve that we have not experienced in the legal costs profession since the 2013 Jackson reforms. As a so-called “millennial” and recently qualified costs lawyer, … Continue reading The year of the e-bill: a reflection on the introduction of the electronic bill of costs in 2018 and a look forward to the automated future of legal costs
