Costs Lawyers, Draftsmen & Consultants, call 01628 526236
Costs Lawyers, Draftsmen & Consultants, call 01628 526236
18/05/2017
Coulson J warns against parties adopting an unrealistic approach to costs budgeting and in particular with regards to Precedent R.
05/03/2017
Carr J: “On a detailed assessment on a standard basis, the costs judge is bound by the agreed or approved cost budget, unless there is a good reason to depart from it.”
22/11/2016
Briggs LJ decides that cases which commence under the RTA and EL/PL protocols and settle prior to a disposal hearing attract the most generous fixed costs regime
13/09/2016
Pre-LASPO 2012 CFA can be transferred between firms, Master Leonard decides
02/06/2016
CPR 44.13 should be interpreted in a way that “more justly achieves what is plainly the purpose of the regime as divined from the Rules”, says Edis J.
01/06/2016
A motivation of personal trust and confidence between client and fee earner is not necessary to validate an assignment, HHJ Graham Wood QC decides– but admits his judgment may require appellate court review
19/04/2016
Part 36 did not preclude a judge from making an issue-based or proportionate costs order where a claimant had only succeeded on some issues. However, the constraints of Part 36 meant that it would be reasonable to deprive a claimant all or part of their costs only if it would be unjust to order otherwise, having regard to “all the circumstances of the case”
23/03/2016
A claimant awarded £5,000 in damages was entitled to recover his costs on the standard basis (budgeted at almost £129,000) following a defendant’s “inadequate” capped costs offer, a High Court judge has decided.
14/03/2016
Sales LJ sets out the Court of Appeal’s policy regarding costs security when a party demonstrates a 'deliberate reticence' about its financial position, and the relevance of any court approved costs budget in the calculation of an appropriate sum
07/03/2016
A circuit judge had no discretion to refuse a 10 per cent uplift to successful legally-aided claimant, because their claim did not fall within the singular Simmons v Castle exception.
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"Can I just take this opportunity to thank you, you have done a splendid job in a short amount of time in limited hours. We are very grateful."F Khan - London
If you have any questions, please get in touch - we are happy to help.