The latest twist in the long running saga of AB v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 72 (KB) (and X v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor [2023] EWHC 1092 (KB)) is that AB/X, who previously benefited from an anonymity order, has been revealed as high profile solicitor advocate Robin Makin, of Liverpool […]
Liverpool solicitor Robin Makin named as ‘AB/X’ in anonymity case Read More »
The 2023 version of the Senior Court Costs Office Guide is now available.
Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2023 Read More »
Costs seminar from Andrew Hogan and Erica Bedford on costs and litigation funding as they apply to class actions, group litigation and representative actions including retainers, litigation funding, costs budgeting and capping, costs orders and detailed assessment.
Costs and group litigation seminar Read More »
The case of Isah, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 268 concerned: “the issue of whether a judge is permitted to order costs to be summarily assessed in a different court by a different judge or whether a summary assessment must be undertaken by the
Can one judge make a costs order and a different judge undertake the summary assessment? Read More »
A recent post looked at the arguments for and against whether Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”) applies to detailed assessment proceedings. The recent decision of Costs Judge Leonard in PME v The Scout Association [2023] EWHC 158 (SCCO) is therefore interesting. The underlying case concerned a claim for personal injury. The claim settled in the
Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) and detailed assessment Read More »
Last week I attended the Association of Costs Lawyers’ London Regional Meeting. This consisted of a couple of interesting costs talks from some of the costs specialists at 12 King’s Bench Walk. One of these considered the question of whether QOCS protection applies to detailed assessment. 12KBW have kindly given me permission to reproduce the
Does QOCS protection apply to detailed assessment? Read More »
Very interesting webinar from costs counsel Andrew Hogan and Craig Ralph on retainers and billing post-Belsner.
Retainers and billing post-Belsner webinar Read More »
The Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals have announced changes to how certain Judges are addressed in court. From now on, the Judges listed below should be addressed in court or tribunal hearings as ‘Judge’: Masters Upper Tribunal Judges Judges of the Employment Appeal Tribunal District Judges District Judges (Magistrates Courts) First-Tier Tribunal
New terminology for costs judges Read More »
Inter partes bills of costs that do not exceed £75,000 are normally subject to provisional assessment. Where a case does not go beyond provisional assessment, the maximum amount the court can award either party in respect of the costs of assessment is £1,500, plus VAT, plus the court fee. Is not uncommon for a bill
Provisional assessment and £75,000 figure Read More »
Practice Directions do not have the same status as the Civil Procedure Rules themselves. Sometimes the Practice Directions are misleading. Sometimes they are simply wrong (eg KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475). One example of the Practice Directions being misleading/wrong is in relation to the issue of setting aside a Default Costs
Good reason to set aside Default Costs Certificate Read More »
