Search

Dangers of agreeing budgets – Sarpd Oil International Ltd

One must employ extreme caution when agreeing any element of an opponent’s costs budget and indeed when making representations at a CMC. The Court of Appeal has handed down very clear guidance in the case of Sarpd Oil International Ltd and Addax Energy SA and ANR [2016] EWCA Civ 120. The case must be put into context of “high-end” Judicial comment on the Budgeting regime. In his Harbour lecture of 13th May 2015, Jackson LJ said: “Costs Management works. When an expert judge or master costs manages litigation with competent practitioners on both sides, the costs of litigation are controlled from an early stage. Although some practitioners and judges regard the process as tiresome, it brings s

New Rules on Costs Budgeting – Effective 6th April 2016

NEW RULES ON BUDGETING The 83rd Update of the CPR brings a host of changes into force from 6th April 2016. There are very significant changes on the Budgeting process and its implication on assessment, of which practitioners need to be aware. The type of budget to be used in particular circumstances, the timing of filing/exchange and the contents of the budget are all subject to change. A new form is introduced, being an “Agreed Budget Discussion Report” which summarises the stance of the parties on each other’s budgets and which has to be filed prior to the 1st CMC. Bills also need to be in a different format where there has been a Costs Management Order. There are provisions amending Pract

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE – ATE PREMIUM CHALLENGE

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE – ATE PREMIUM CHALLENGE As one of our recent blogs showed, there are still cases out there where a receiving party is entitled to seek to recover an ATE insurance premium (see ATE premiums – The Pursuit of Happiness? 12/2/16) but gradually the landscape is changing. In general, policies effected after 1st April 2013 do not give rise to recoverable premiums between the parties and now only limited cases qualify for any sort of recoverable premium. A recent case on Appeal in the County Court at Chester before HHJ Pearce (Axelrod v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) is a case where the level of the premium in a clinical negligence matter was in issue. The policy w

Costs Blog

Disclaimer: The content of this blog is provided on a complimentary basis. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of SPH Costing Services Ltd. The content of the blog is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter or generally. Individual Legal advice should be sought from a Lawyer in relation to any specific case or issue. SPH Costing Services Ltd does not accept any responsibility for the correctness of this blog or for any consequences of relying on it.

© 2020 SPH Costing Services Ltd - Registered in England 3194408

Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen