Search

AMBUSH TACTICS? Hayden v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1121(QB)

AMBUSH TACTICS? LATE APPLICATION TO RELY ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE GRANTED BUT AT HIGH COST. An application to rely upon surveillance evidence made within 2 weeks of the fixed trial period was eventually granted – but only after the trial date had been vacated; an order for summarily assessed costs of nearly £40,000 was made; with a further cancellation fee of £11,700 to be determined upon written submissions and finally the additional cost of the experts reporting upon the footage and discussing it with opponents all payable by the Defendant on the indemnity basis. In a recent decision of Foskett J in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, in the matter of Hayden v Maidstone & Tunbrid

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT (CFA) – HIS HONOUR JUDGE WOOD QC RULES ASSIGNMENT POSSIBLE

CFA – COURT RULES ASSIGNMENT POSSIBLE A much anticipated decision has been received in the matter of Jones v Spire Healthcare Ltd, being a decision of His Honour Judge Wood QC in the County Court at Liverpool, on the question of the validity of the assignment of entitlements and responsibilities under CFA’s. The situation at hand was that a firm of Solicitors, Barnetts, went into administration and a deal was struck between the administrators and another firm, SGI, for the transfer of various personal injury cases proceeding under CFA’s. One particular difficulty was that the regulations on the nature and format of CFA’s had changed between the time they were originally created and at the po

‘J’ Codes and the New Bill of Costs – the debate hots up but is the patient terminal….?

J Codes and New Bill of Costs – the debate hots up but is the patient terminal? Earlier this year the writer provided commentary on the progress of the implementation of the long awaited J-Codes and new Bill of Costs, noting that the process had been put on hold pending further consultation, considering it to be “…too soon…” for a full-scale roll out. It would now appear that the battle-lines have been firmly drawn between Jackson LJ and the body tasked to review and formulate the new format of the Bill, the Hutton Committee. In his latest speech to the Law Society, Jackson LJ stated (being careful not to be openly critical of the Hutton Committee and was “…right to be cautious…” in its find

QOCS Protection and Fundamental Dishonesty – latest ruling clarifies extent of protection

QOCS Protection and Fundamental Dishonesty – latest ruling clarifies extent of protection The advent of LASPO in April 2013, which replaced the regime of ATE insurance to cover adverse costs with Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS), also provided that there would be exceptions to the protection afforded under the scheme such that it would not be an absolute shield in all circumstances, as it may at first have appeared and the circumstances in which the court may exercise its discretion to deny a party QOCS protection was first set out in the matter of Gosling v Screwfix Direct Ltd & Anor (29 April 2014, Cambridge County Court, HHJ Maloney). In a more recent case involving an RTA, Rouse v

CPR 45 Fixed Costs – Advocacy fee payable despite settlement

CPR 45 Fixed Costs – Advocacy fee payable despite settlement at the 11th hour Fixed Costs were intended, Jackson LJ said, to provide certainty in the amounts to be awarded between the parties in matters to which they apply, typically low value personal injury claims. Notwithstanding this, there have been considerable challenges brought by paying parties in relation to all aspects of those costs, to include inter alia the points at which each stage of those fixed costs are triggered and allowable disbursements, to name but a few. It is, therefore, considerably unsurprising that at some point the High Court would be required to provide a judgement on one of these points, in order to provide so

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