A claimant’s decision to surrender their legal aid funding in favour of a CFA rendered unreasonable due to their solicitor’s failure to give advice regarding the post LASPO landscape
Access to Justice Act costs rules did not breach ECHR, court decides in majority verdict
Warby J reduces defendant’s proposed legal budget by more than a quarter, claiming the reduced sum will still allow them to undertake a “proper” defence.
The complex and financially onerous ECF application process has undermined the regime’s LASPO safety net, says Collins J
Master Gordon-Saker erred in his interpretation of CPR 36.14 (3) (d), a High Court judge has decided
A claimant should not be subject to a “swingeing” costs order for adding to their plea if they ultimately win damages using the same evidence as their initial claim.
Norris J decides how to allocate costs where some legal expenditure is common to four related disputes, and where both sides win elements of their case.
Coulson J decides that a claimant’s proposed £9.2 million costs budget for a straightforward £18 million damages claim was excessive.
The rights of interested parties to costs was discussed in a recent High Court ruling arising out of a government procurement dispute.
The Court of Appeal expresses concern over the withdrawal of legal aid for the majority of family proceedings
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"At Hodge Jones and Allen we have a large team of specialist clinical negligence lawyers who require costs draftsmen who understand the complex nature of our work and who are able to negotiate on high value multi-track cases consistently and with ease. Toby Moreton fits this bill entirely and he and his team have given us invaluable assistance on all aspects of costs negotiating for several years now. In particular, Toby's easy manner yet in-depth understanding of costs law makes him a pleasure to work with."Olivia Lawson – for Hodge Jones & Allen LLP