Costs & Damages
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: England & Wales
By Law Brief Publishing on 17/07/2014 12:49 PM
Signature on a costs budget by a costs draughtsman is an irregularity but does not render the budget a nullity. The Defendant ('D') filed a costs budget that was fully compliant save that it was signed by a costs draughtsman rather than a senior legal representative as required by CPR, PD 3E. The Third Party ('3P') argued that the non-compliance rendered the budget a nullity and that CPR, r.3.14 should apply to limit D's budget to only the applicable court fees. The court agreed that the c ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 17/06/2014 12:58 PM
The claim arose out of an injury in 2008 and was issued in 2011, well before the implementation of the Jackson reforms. However, the claim was funded by a BTE agreement and the Claimant sought qualified one-way costs shifting ("QOCS") protection under CPR rule 44.14. The Defendant therefore made an application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty under CPR rule 44.16(1). The Claimant succeeded on liability however the Defendant adduced covert surveillance evidence and the Claimant was found t ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 20/05/2014 1:18 PM
No sanction imposed on party for filing costs budget one day late. The Fourth Defendant ('D4') filed her costs budget six days before the costs management hearing as opposed to the requisite seven. The Judge held that the breach was trivial; the Claimant had suffered no prejudice; the parties were able to deal with costs management at the hearing; and, unlike in Mitchell, there had been no disruption caused to the court's timetable. The Judge ordered, under CPR r.3.14, that the usual sanction ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 19/05/2014 9:17 AM
Provisions of CPR Part 29 concerning CMCs would not apply to a Part 8 claim until the claim was allocated to the multi-track. The Appellant ('A') issued a Part 8 claim in the Taunton County Court prompting the Court to list a direction hearing. A served a costs budget prior to the directions hearing. The Respondent ('R') tried to serve a budget, although it was not received before the hearing. At the directions hearing, the DJ allocated the claim to the multi-track and transferred it to Rhyl ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 17/04/2014 2:16 PM
Claimant ordered to pay costs on indemnity basis as sanction for taking 'futile and time-wasting procedural points'. The Claimant (C) wrote to the Defendant (D) asking for confirmation that it would file its costs budget 'on' 28 February. D agreed saying costs budgets should be filed 'by' 28 February. C filed its costs budget on 27 February and D filed its costs budget on 28 February. C argued that 28 February was only six clear days before the CMC, not seven as required by CPR r.3.13, and th ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 31/03/2014 11:04 AM
Requirement contained in a notice of proposed allocation under CPR r.26.3 to file Directions Questionnaire did not also amount to a requirement to serve a costs budget. The Claimant (C) appealed against the District Judge's decision that a notice of proposed allocation to the multi-track required the parties to file a costs budget despite there being no such reference to the requirement to do so on the notice. HHJ Worster rejected the argument that CPR r.3.13 was not engaged until the case ...
By Kate Manning on 27/02/2014 4:22 PM
The issue was whether a failure to include a full Statement of Truth in a costs budget breached CPR 3.13. Held: There is nothing in the rules or practice directions which requires any and every failure to comply with the formal requirements for budgets as rendering the budget a nullity. Although the absence of a statement of true is not trivial, it is a failure of form rather than substance. In the present case, the claimant had filed and exchanged a costs budget on time, which was subject ...
By Kate Manning on 24/02/2014 4:59 PM
Costs appeal raising the issue of whether supervening incapacity automatically terminates a solicitor's contract of retainer. Held: Although an agent's authority terminates automatically upon the mental incapacity of their principal (subject to ostensible authority or liability for breach of warranty), loss of capacity does not, in itself, have the legal effect of frustrating or otherwise terminating an underlying contract of retainer. Findley v Barrington Jones [2009] EWHC 90130 (Costs) base ...
By Kate Manning on 20/02/2014 9:08 AM
Appeal against, inter alia, an overall costs order, which included amendment costs where the successful party had been granted the amendment and costs of an interim injunction. Held: The general rule is that those who obtain permission to amend are ordered to pay the other parties' costs of and occasioned by the amendment. An order providing that a party will recover the costs of an interim application only if they satisfy a costs condition, such as success on an issue relating to that or ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 18/02/2014 3:23 PM
Successful appeal against refusal to apply the costs consequences of Part 36 to a Claimant who refused to accept an offer that he subsequently failed to beat. The Claimant ('C') claimed damages for personal injuries sustained when he was knocked down by a bus. Liability for the accident was apportioned equally between the parties. In April 2007, C refused D's £75,000 offer of settlement. The offer was repeated in November 2007 as a Part 36 offer. In June 2009, D made a further Part 36 of ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use