Costs & Damages
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: England & Wales
By Law Brief Publishing on 25/09/2014 3:11 PM
Misusing an order for costs in an attempt to discipline the Director of Public Prosecutions. Peter Barry Goodison, the driver of a bus, was prosecuted for an offence of causing death by careless driving. Mr Goodison was tried at the Crown Court at Sheffield and was acquitted. After the acquittal the trial Judge determined that the failure to prosecute another driver involved in the collision and the decision only to prosecute Mr Goodison were improper acts or omissions. The trial Judge theref ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:56 PM
The claimants had lost in their professional negligence action against the defendant. One issue for consideration by the judge was whether the defendant's costs should be assessed on the standard basis or the indemnity basis. The defendant's previously approved costs budget was in the sum of £91,700, but its schedule at the conclusion of the litigation was for £166,649. A costs order on the indemnity basis would give the defendant the opportunity to recover costs in excess of its appro ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:55 PM
Warby J considered an application for relief from sanctions where the claimant's solicitor had mistakenly served a notice of funding late. The defendant had been notified of the funding arrangement by letter prior to issue but the claimant's solicitor had failed to file and serve a notice of funding with the claim form. The earlier letter contained all the information required by the rules and the solicitor mistakenly thought that it amounted to compliance. The error had come to the attention of ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 21/08/2014 10:10 AM
The Claimant had been injured in a skiing accident while on a package holiday organised by the Defendant. The Defendant denied liability and added her skiing instructor, the Third Party, to proceedings. The Claimant's claim was dismissed, as was the Defendant's claim against the Third Party. The judge ordered that the Claimant should pay the Defendant's costs and the Defendant should pay the Third Party's costs. He then applied the rules on qualified one-way costs shifting (CPR r 44.13 and r 44. ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 18/08/2014 4:19 PM
The Claimant had appealed the allocation of his claim to the small claims track. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and came to consider the costs of the appeal. The court held that it would have awarded the Defendant his costs of the appeal however this was prevented by the wording of the CPR. CPR rule 27.14 was clearly worded and extended to the costs of an appeal. This included an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Rule 52.9A gives courts the power to limit costs on an appeal but does not g ...
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 ...
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