Award of Indemnity Costs. An application for indemnity costs against the respondent bank was granted as it had conducted its litigation in an unreasonable and unsatisfactory manner by pursuing allegations in a counterclaim that were deeply flawed from the start and had little prospect of success. It was said that where a court was considering whether a losing party’s conduct was such as to justify an indemnity costs order against that party, the minimum nature of that conduct required to engage ...
|
Assessment of the Successful Party under Part 36 The Court of Appeal held that a judge had utilised his discretion correctly in ordering the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs from the date of a Part 36 offer that the defendant had not accepted until the date of settlement a day before the trial had been due to commence. CPR 36 did not provide for a suspension of the 21-day time limit while an offeree investigated an offer. CPR 44 allowed the court to take into account all the circumstances ...
|
CFA Unenforceable where Material Non-compliance with Regulation. It was held that a Conditional Fee Agreement was not valid and enforceable because there had been material non-compliance with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 which requires solicitors to inform the client about the availability of insurance and other methods of financing the costs. The client had transferred to a firm of solicitors who were not on the panel of the insurers who were initially fundin ...
|
Services provided by Sole Proprietor Solicitor Liable for VAT. A sole proprietor solicitor failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his VAT assessment was incorrect. The services in question were to be treated as the provision of legal services rather than disbursements, which brought them within the scope of VAT. A profit element in the charge for land services took it outside the definition of ‘disbursements’ in the relevant EU Directive. The costs of telegraphic services and ...
|
Unsigned Conditional Fee Agreement Unenforceable. Cardiff County Court held that a conditional fee agreement between a client and her solicitors because the solicitors had failed to sign it. Therefore, no costs referable to it were recoverable from the other party. A solicitor’s signature on a CFA was important, and not a mere trivial formality. The signature provided the client with protection against the possibility that an unscrupulous solicitor might seek to enforce his right to be paid reas ...
|
Director liable for Company pursuing hopeless Counterclaim. Rimer J. held that where companies had irresponsibly pursued a hopeless counterclaim on the instructions and for the benefit of a controlling director, that director was made liable, jointly and severally with the companies, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis. It was an exceptional case in which the director was in substance the, or at least a, real party to the proceedings from start to finish.
|
Legal Aid- Private Client Test. The Claimant applied to judicially review the decision by the Funding Review Committee of the Legal Services Commission to uphold the discharge of his legal aid certificate. The decision was quashed on the basis that the Committee had failed to provide adequate reasons as to how it had concluded that the substantial costs already incurred in the proceedings would not have justified a private client being advised to proceed, or how that conclusion fitted into its ...
|
Legal Aid- Private Client Test. The Claimant applied to judicially review the decision by the Funding Review Committee of the Legal Services Commission to uphold the discharge of his legal aid certificate. The decision was quashed on the basis that the Committee had failed to provide adequate reasons as to how it had concluded that the substantial costs already incurred in the proceedings would not have justified a private client being advised to proceed, or how that conclusion fitted into its p ...
|
Costs of Application for Pre-Action Disclosure. Held that in the circumstances it had been wrong to order the respondent to an application for pre-accident disclosure to pay the applicant’s costs. The judge had failed to have sufficient regard to CPR 48.1 which lays down the general rule that the respondent to an application for pre-action disclosure would be awarded his costs. He did not appear to have fully appreciated its significance or considered what kind of conduct would justify the cou ...
|
Costs of PI action where Claimant found to be Dishonest. At a hearing for the assessment of costs a claimant who, at a previous hearing, had been found to have dishonestly exaggerated several aspects of her claim, was found liable for 90% of the defendant’s costs in respect of the period when the defendant was not protected by a Part 36 offer, subject to a set-off of £5,000. CPR 44.3 requires the conduct of the claimant to be taken into account; this conduct easily brought the claimant within t ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |