Search

THE VALIDITY OF CFAs – THE REQUIREMENT OF CANCELLATION NOTICES – Mrs Ozlem Kupeli and 668 others v A

THE VALIDITY OF CFAs – THE REQUIREMENT OF CANCELLATION NOTICES In the case of Mrs Ozlem Kupeli and 668 others v Atlasjet Havacilik Anonim Sirketi [2017] EWCA Civ 1037, the Court of Appeal has been considering the application of the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 and in particular the definition of “an excursion organised by a trader away from his business premises”. Briefly, the case was in relation to complaints by a large number of people that the Defendant had failed to meet its obligations in transporting them to their destinations following the collapse of the airline with which they had originally bought tickets (the Defendant

Relief from Sanction Denied for Costs Budget 1 day out of time – Lakhani & Another v Mahmud &amp

Relief from Sanction Denied for Costs Budget 1 day out of time – Lakhani & Another v Mahmud & Others [2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch). Ever since the introduction of costs budgeting, there has been a wealth of case law developed surrounding the same, and no more so than where a party has been in default of the rules. The provisions of CPR 3.14provide that a party failing to file a budget in accordance with the rules “…will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.” and thus in such circumstances there is an automatic sanction restricting that party’s costs to court fees only, unless a successful Application for Relief from Sanction can be pursued. The first matter t

Application of QOCS – Significant New Decision confirms application against Compensatory Bodies

Application of QOCS – Significant New Decision confirms application against Compensatory Bodies The issue of when and where Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) ought to apply, and tensions in the rules in respect thereof, especially where claims are brought against a compensatory body rather than a more traditional, personal defendant who has wronged the Claimant, has been a matter of some debate since the introduction of QOCS. It had long been thought and, indeed, argued that a claimant not pursuing an individual, but rather a body, was not entitled to such protection as it did not strictly fit into the definition prescribed by CPR 44.13. However, most recently, the Court of Appeal has

Costs Budgeting – Rock & Roll Back Again – Sir Cliff Richard OBE v British Broadcasting Corporat

Costs Budgeting – Rock & Roll Back Again – Sir Cliff Richard OBE v British Broadcasting Corporation and Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2017] EWHC 1666(Ch). In what we can safely now say is “a thing”, we have yet more assistance in understanding costs procedure from the Courts arising from a case involving a rock ‘n’ roll star. As with our blog of 8 May 2017 (here) this case involves Sir Cliff Richard. In that blog we took the opportunity to highlight the changes in the rules (particularly CPR 3.15 (4)) enabling the Court to make comment on the incurred costs included within any Budget. Now we have the outcome of the CCMC in Sir Cliff’s case with some very interesting views ex

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