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.
11 thoughts on “Recoverability of funding costs”
Replies received
The funding in this instance is recoverable. In the instant case , the Claimant was not a prospective client , they were already clients having alreafy entered into a retainer with and provided instructions to their Solicitors.
Costs in obtaining ATE insurance also maintained.
It’s exactly the same with counsel’s attendance fees as IAH’s. As if GW v BW wasn’t bad enough for claimants, you’d have thought Dockerill would have put the nail in the coffin.
But oh no, I actually have a D/A listed shortly.
What you’ll probably find is that clients are instructing people to still claim such things DESPITE advice to the contrary
What is your argument against that Kevin?
Pete
Just trying to be helpful and set out other people’s views.
No need to raise an “argument” yet
Argument:
A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong
I presume the pre retainer advice on funding was given and not claimed in the Bill?
if all funding had been claimed then the above reply creates a serious issue, albeit for the client and not the paying party
as predominately a claimant motto is clear, we don’t claim funding now, I would hate to have to argue against motto and would not do so as I don’t agree with arguments to the contrary
Claimant lawyers’ will hide the funding costs in their bills, lets be honest it’s not too difficult.
really?? I am a claimant costs lawyer
I categorically reject the last post. I steadfastly refuse to include funding based upon motto.
Do not tar everyone with the brush.
As Claimant i can have some serious criticisms of Defendants but the reality is that whilst some are total muppets some are skilled, sensible and make it their job to put you at risk from day 1.
My point is dont make sweeping statements
Calm down, it is not a sweeping statement, simply an observation. I act mainly for defendants and on assessment hearings when the bill is produced often there is no mention in attendance notes.
Anyway I was talking about proper lawyers not costs lawyers!
Ok, bring on the e-mails.
Calm down, it is not a sweeping statement, simply an observation. I act mainly for defendants and on assessment hearings when the bill is produced often there is no mention in attendance notes of funding when it is there for all to see.
Anyway I was talking about proper lawyers not costs lawyers!
Ok, bring on the e-mails.