In the landmark case of Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), the Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial High Court decision restricting the application of litigation privilege. Elisabeth Ross considers what this means for practitioners.
On 15 May 2018, the Court of Appeal published its judgment in the joint appeals of the P&P Property and Dreamvar cases. Both cases focus on the liability of solicitors where the purported seller of a property is in fact an imposter. Elisabeth Ross considers the cases’ impact.
Can a claimant who has instructed solicitors on legal aid, switch to a CFA and recover the success fee and ATE premium? Imran Benson of Hailsham Chambers discusses the Court of Appeal (CA) judgment in Surrey v Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 451.
The Supreme Court has ruled against treating a litigant in person as a special case and says the rules as they stand must apply equally to all parties.
Alison Kirby analyses this judgment in which the High Court has considered, for the first time, whether the Arkin cap - the principle that a funder’s potential liability for adverse costs will be limited to the amount of the funding provided - still fits.
Kerry Underwood dissects two recent judgments that could have significant implications for third party funders.
Kerry Underwood looks at where we stand with part 36 in light of recent judgments and Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on fixed recoverable costs.
Andy Ellis, managing director of Practico Ltd, reacts to the Court of Appeal decision in BNM v MGN on proportionality.
With Inheritance Act claims and will disputes being the order of the day in the first few months of the year, trusts, anonymity and judicial discretion seem to be the flavour of the spring and summer months.
James Perry provides commentary on Wiseman v Marston’s Plc.
Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers and a partner at Weightmans, explains why Harrison reinforces the need to ensure proper consideration is given to budgets.
RFC 2012 plc (in liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc (‘Rangers’) v Advocate General of Scotland  UKSC 45.
The recently reported case of London Aviation Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc  EWHC 1037 (Ch) decided that an expert was not ‘reasonably required’ because, on the facts of the case, an expert was unlikely to assist the judge.
In this case, Mr Justice Teare considered whether the claimant company providing legal services could recover costs for the time spent on the litigation by its sole shareholder, a solicitor advocate.
The Supreme Court gave judgment in this case on 2 August 2016, and settled a very important issue: how are damages assessed when a British citizen is injured in an overseas accident?
An appeal court ruling may have delivered a serious body blow to solicitors offering unbundled services without being held liable for matters beyond those in their client retainer. Alison Kirby discusses the Patel judgment.
Supreme Court holds that a settlement may be set aside for fraud even if fraud is suspected
The High Court has held that it has the power to order a party to appoint a separate law firm to conduct an independent re-review of its disclosure on strong grounds, although it chose not to in this case
Commercial Court rules that the full effect of part 36 was unjust when sterling value had recently fallen against the dollar.
The court has held a claimant liable for a defendant’s costs of and incidental to an abandoned professional negligence claim, even though the claim form had not been served - good news for defendants aiming to recover costs incurred pre-action?