Brexit: the seemingly all permeating portmanteau that, love it or hate it, filled the national consciousness for the past four years, finally came to pass at the end of January. With much fanfare, but no earth-shattering physical changes (at least not yet) the UK left the European Union and the focus changed to what the longer sighted always saw as the real battleground: trade, and how to mitigate the impact for businesses and individuals. Continue reading
“Pin-striped enablers.” A new synonym for lawyers according to Andrew Foxall and his report, Russian Kleptocracy and the Rule of Law: How the Kremlin Undermines European Judicial Systems, recently published by The Henry Jackson Society. The report outlines a new study on how corrupt Russian oligarchs and officials have exploited different European justice systems for their own political or economic gain. In the case of the UK, Foxall asserts that “Russian oligarchs may have used English courts to launder tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of pounds through various scams,” allegedly aided by law firms failing to comply with their duties and becoming either knowingly (or unknowingly) embroiled in sham litigation. Continue reading
All civil litigation practitioners ought to know the difference between standard and indemnity basis costs. Whilst CPR 44.3(1) applies to both and provides that the court will not allow costs which have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount, an important distinction is provided for in CPR 44.3(2)(a) and (b). Standard costs must be reasonable and necessary, and will be disallowed if they are not proportionate under CPR 44.3(5)(a)-(e). Indemnity costs, on the other hand, need only be reasonable. There is no proportionality requirement such as that they must bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue under, for example, CPR 44.3(5)(a). Continue reading