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?
The ECJ has provided guidance on the proper construction of ‘inquiry’ in article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC relating to insureds’ right to choose a lawyer under a legal expenses insurance policy
Mr Justice Coulson has ruled that a claimant could recover trial advocacy fees under CPR 45 when a claim settled on the day of the hearing, before the trial was heard
The court upholds a contingency fee agreement whereby the solicitors billed £498,083.52, whereas on a time basis the total would have been around £50,000.00 - an 800 per cent uplift
The High Court has given guidance on the transfer of existing cases to the Shorter Trials Scheme
Court of Appeal rules that litigants in persons can benefit from ‘without prejudice’ rule without knowing what it means
What are the costs consequences following the making of part 36 offers? The Court of Appeal overturns a decision on costs and confirms there is no ’near miss’ rule for part 36 offers
The Supreme Court has granted anonymity to a double-murderer. When is it right to keep the names of parties to civil litigation a secret?
A very wide approach to the inspection of confidential material? The court has ruled that the disclosure of confidential Serious Fraud Office and client documents to dispose fairly of the issues overweighed any public interest in keeping them witheld
An important decision from the Supreme Court that has reaffirmed that a party who has failed to obtain relief from sanctions cannot make another application without demonstrating a change in circumstances
This case is only available as a summary on Lawtel at present, but suggests that the duties imposed on public bodies by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be relevant to the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege
The court considered whether the conduct of the claimant’s solicitors had been unreasonable or improper within the meaning of CPR 44.11, conduct that included the intentional failure to disclose the existence of a CFA
The High Court considers the meaning and purpose of CPR 35.1, and provides guidance on when expert evidence is ‘reasonably required’
The Privy Council has reversed findings on dishonesty from the lower courts, and provides a useful reminder in relation to appealing findings of facts
Court of Appeal confirms that the principles set out in Mitchell have to be read in the light of Denton
This case is an usual case of the court upholding a challenge to an expert determination, and a reminder of the limited grounds on which an expert determination can be challenged
In one of the first judgments since the Jackson reforms, Master Leonard has given useful guidance on the extent of recoverability of post-LASPO ATE premiums in medical negligence claims
Court of Appeal upholds Mr Justice Mostyn’s decision to vary a trust in a nuptial settlement, in order to meet the wife’s financial claim. In his judgment, Lord Justice Jackson gave guidance about the procedure to appeal a High Court decision
The High Court overrules a senior costs judge, after he denied a claimant who made a successful part 36 offer in detailed assessment proceedings the additional 10% uplift
How to deal with costs management in circumstances where the claimant’s budget was “entirely unreliable” and where the costs were “wholly disproportionate”
The High Court has allowed a case to continue despite a party failing to turn up for a directions hearing, and post-Denton, is another expression of leniency by the court in relation to parties seeking relief from sanctions
In this case, which provides a useful example of cost assessment in cases where there are two parties and part 36 offers, the court found negligence on the part of a doctor and football club in a claim brought by a professional football player
The High Court has highlighted some common issues that arise in costs management, and given general guidance on completing costs budgets
It may be reasonable for a party incurring costs to spare no expense in a case where large amounts of money are at stake, says Mr Justice Leggatt.
High Court has more than halved a successful party’s costs on summary assessment on the basis of proportionality, in one of the clearest applications of the new proportionality rule seen so far
The court considered to what extent the Mitchell/Denton principles apply to applications by defendants to set aside judgments. The principles are highly applicable when it comes to considering the delay in making the application to set aside.
High Court refuses to make a costs-capping order 10 days before trial, saying that the case was too close to trial and the defendant had already spent so much at a level that a detailed assessment was inevitable.
An offer of settlement had a major impact on costs even though it was not a valid part 36 offer and the claimant did better at trial.
Court of Appeal rules on limits of power under CPR 52.9A to limit costs of appeals in proceedings where recovery is normally restricted.
Court applied three-stage test in Denton when considering an application for relief from sanctions, and held failure to serve notice of new CFA was not a serious breach.
Court of Appeal’s first interpretation of QOCS provisions, including whether the QOCS regime was a valid one and if QOCS applies to Part 20 proceedings between a defendant and a third party.
Reviews the law relating to conduct and costs; the power to award indemnity costs; and the effect of an order for indemnity costs on a costs budget.
A hearing to determine the costs consequences of a variation to a Part 36 offer.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal heard three appeals together which concerned relief from sanctions and the application of Mitchell principles. Cait Sweeney examines the issues and practical implications raised by the hearings.
Overturning a Circuit Judge’s decision refusing relief from sanctions, Lord Justice Jackson stated that, as long as proceedings are not disrupted, parties will not be in breach of their obligations to their client by considering reasonable extensions of time.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the law applicable to claims in respect of fatal accidents where the accident happened abroad. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 does not have universal application.
The Court of Appeal upheld a decision to grant a claimant relief from sanctions, deciding that to threaten the entire progress of a case would be too severe.
The Commercial Court refused to treat service by email of the particulars of claim on the defendant as valid, despite the fact that this was not agreed by the defendant and was served late.
The court considered whether, if a breach of a court order attracting sanctions can be viewed as trivial, could another trivial breach of the same order result in the first breach be viewed as non-trivial.
A claimant was refused permission to rely upon a second expert report where the report of an original expert had been served, but the expert had withdrawn from the case.