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 “Costs Lawyer legal research”
Has anyone ever truly cited “Google” or “Wikipedia” as an authority for any legal arguments?
I’ve come across some utter morons in my time, but never yet run into that.
Interesting angle by the ACL; thoroughly sick of their members asking me for copies of cases, because (1) they misquoted originally and didn’t understand why I disagreed and referred them to the transcript, or (2) they don’t have access to the legal resources above (PAY then!)
More interestingly, whilst never enjoyed the mirth-inducing “its on Google” quote yet, I have referred and had referred to me, both this blog, and that of Gordon Exall, and the Judges concerned happily concurred
No Google or Wiki but I saw a notable Birmingham firm reject some case law as it was “very old”. Whilst very old, it was still valid and no ‘new’ law was offered in its place.
@ charles wheatcroft
I’ve had that too, specifically on disputes where there’s been arguments as to whether an offer had been made and accepted – seems draftsmen don’t believe Contract Law applies to them!
Not referring to hyde v wrench are you by chance?
Given the purposed level of instruction needed for costs lawyers, further to abdce’s post.
A simplified version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3pf5_eV_xI
PS Do not use this link as an authority in pod or replies.
and this is the organisation, that now wants its members to be QC’s (hint – the clue is in the name)