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.
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
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
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)).
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