Good Arguable Case for Third Party Costs Order Against Claimant’s Parents Funding Litigation
Blake J held that the Defendant school was entitled to an ancillary order as to disclosure in its application for a third party costs order against the Claimant’s parents, following the discontinuance of the Claimant’s claim for substantial damages for failure of the Defendant, his former school, to take measures to prevent him from being bullied. Notwithstanding that this was a case of family funding, Blake J considered that there was merit in the Defendant’s argument that this was not a case o ...
|
Blair J held that a Claimant was not entitled to recover a fee he had paid to a claims handling company that, pursuant to a conditional fee agreement, had successfully handled his claim for vibration white finger injuries. There was no legal justification for implying a contractual term that the company had to disclose to the Claimant that it would also receive a fee under a government scheme if the claim was successful. As the Claimant only had to pay a capped fee in the event that he was succe ...
|
The Law Society should take in to account the means of a solicitor in approaching sanctions and costs and that where exceptional poverty was present a commensurate reduction in the fine and costs order which was proportionate to the breaches of the code and took in to account the prospect of future earnings was appropriate.
|
Costs Apportionment In Line With Liability Upheld: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been entitled to award costs in accordance with his finding of a 65:35 split on liability as, having regard to the Defendant’s cross-claim, he had been correct to decide that justice was best served by him doing so. Although the cross-claim was “by the wayside” and not a formally pleaded Counterclaim, and it was not mentioned by the judge when making the Order, it was clear that liability in the ...
|
Court Erred in Ordering Claimant to Pay Security For Costs: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had erred in ordering the Claimant to pay security for costs in respect of its claim. Although the precondition to make such an order, that the Claimant had no assets, had been satisfied, the Court should have taken into account other factors that pointed away from making such an order. The Claimant had a bona fide claim, on the evidence before the Court one side or the other was bound to win ...
|
Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Costs Where Claimant Abandoned Claims at the Court Doors:-The Court of Appeal held that a judge had been incorrect to make no order as to costs in circumstances where a case settled on the day of trial with the Claimant abandoning most of his claims. In the circumstances, costs should have followed the event, and the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion by not doing so. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on the standard basis; it ...
|
No Presumption That a Party Is Entitled to an Interim Payment on Account of Costs:- The Court of Appeal held that the notion that a party should not be kept from money that he had become entitled to by virtue of a costs order did not have the status of a legal presumption. A party’s entitlement to the benefit of such an order was simply another factor to be considered in the exercise of a judge’s wide discretion under CPR 44.3 and CPR 47.15. In the instant case, the district judge had fallen int ...
|
Costs Judge Gave Inadequate Reasons For Selecting 20% Margin Above Costs Estimate: Morgan J. held that a costs judge had given inadequate reasons for selecting a 20% margin over a costs estimate as the limit on the costs recoverable in a situation where he had been required to determine upon detailed assessment the reliance that had been placed on that estimate. The costs judge had failed to address two relevant considerations: (i) what level of costs would have caused the client to change solic ...
|
Retrospective CFA Held to Not Be Contrary to Public Policy: Christopher Clarke J. held that there was no prohibition on CFAs being retrospective and no reason per se why a retrospective success fee was contrary to public policy. The Court had the ability to disallow or reduce retrospective fees that were unreasonable. If that were wrong then there was no reason why the Court could not delete the success fee leaving the obligation to pay unaffected. There was nothing in the statutory provi ...
|
Costs of Attending Inquest Capable of Recovery in Subsequent Civil Proceedings
It was held on appeal that the costs of attendance at an inquest were not incapable of being recoverable as costs incidental to subsequent civil proceedings. Where a solicitor did not attend an inquest, he might well be able to claim as incidental to civil proceedings the costs he incurred prior to the commencement of proceedings in relation to the collection of evidence from witnesses who had given evidence at the inquest; indeed, it could be envisaged that in many situations such a course woul ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |