REUTERS | Sivaram V
December 3, 2020

Thank you, next, please: English court strikes out business and human rights claim in light of parallel proceedings in Brazil

UK companies with operations overseas will be aware of a recent trend of English courts being open to consider claims of alleged violations of business and human rights (BHR) abroad. In the most recent BHR case of Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group Plc, the High Court appears to have set some limits on its willingness to entertain such claims, particularly where proceedings have already been commenced in an overseas jurisdiction.

Taking into account a number of factors, including the allocation of the court’s resources and procedural practicability, Turner J came to the conclusion that it would be a waste of time, cost, and effort for the same case to be heard simultaneously in Brazil and England, finding that it would be “expensive, almost interminable, unfocussed, unpredictable and unmanageable”.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | GCS
December 1, 2020

Taking on a new client? How to make sure there is “informed consent” (Part 1)

That a firm of solicitors can go unpaid or earn less than it has billed for its work undertaken on behalf of a successful client, is nothing new. Since the passing of the Act for the Better Regulation of Attornies and Solicitors of 1729, which in its evolution, is now embodied in the Solicitors Act 1974, clients (or often ex-clients) benefit from special rights to ask the court to check whether bills they receive from their solicitors for professional services are fair and reasonable. There have been few alterations to the 1974 Act and its successors, although one change has been the deletion of the term “taxation” and its replacement by “assessment”, thereby removing the age old confusion that taxing costs under the Act had something to do with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs!

Perhaps because of this lack of updating, the 1974 Act has generated considerable business in the civil courts which shows no sign of abating. A glance at the notes in the White Book will reveal that much of the 1974 Act is still steeped in Victorian case law, which begs the question whether it is still fit for purpose in the 21st century. What is equally surprising is that there are also many modern authorities, since, in contrast to their solicitor forbears, firms now invariably have written retainers in which their terms of business are set out. That ought to have lessened the likelihood of costs disputes arising between clients and their solicitors.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Benoit Tessier
November 26, 2020

Costs budgeting for litigants in person: CJ and LK Perk Partnership v Royal Bank of Scotland

In CJ & LK Perk Partnership v Royal Bank of Scotland, the court had to consider when it was appropriate to direct a litigant in person (LIP) to file a costs budget.

Background

Costs budgeting was introduced into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to allow the courts to further the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost by managing the steps taken and the costs incurred by the parties in any proceedings. Its objective was that of transparency regarding costs and, thereby, certainty about parties’ costs liability.

A LIP is not required to file a costs budget unless ordered by the court (CPR 3.13(1)). In this case, the court had to consider whether it was appropriate to make such an order.

Continue reading →