To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
7 thoughts on “Motto v Trafigura dead, long live Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group”
Any word on what the “compromise” entailed?
Privileged
Oh the wonders of “Privilege”
I think the word you’re searching for is “confidential”.
Like .. er … pretty much every settlement I’ve been involved in.
Hopefully the Simcoe case will sort out the interest position though (but I suspect not regarding the “CFA lite” point that was the issue in Motto)
Not quite sure why Andy suspects the CFA ‘lite’ point not to be live. As I understand it the CFA in Simcoe is, in effect, a CFA ‘lite’ and the point is very much live. The Defendants seems to be mounting the broadest possible attack on payment of interest from date of costs order, whether the case is a CFA case, CFA ‘lite’ case or non CFA case.
The biggest difference, perhaps, is that Simcoe does not have the unfortunate distraction that Trafigura did of the CFA, for some unknown reason, not including a clause providing for interest to be paid over to the solicitor.
Thanks Anon – that is what I meant but put it badly. Glad you cleared that up
Hmmm the interest point rumbles on, why? because interest is profit for the Solicitor. If the client is never realistically going to have to put his hands in his own pocket for his legal services then why should a Defendant pay interest on costs? Particularly nowadays when a Part 36 offer can be accepted years after it is made? ludricous stance by greedy Claimants. Bring on MOJ reforms which bite (not a watered down amendments to appease unions or people with more than one finger in the pie). These people are milking the system so much that even the cow wants a break!