January 2017

For cases where proceedings are issued on or after 6 April 2016 and cost budgets have been filed, parties must file an “agreed budget discussion report” no later than 7 days before the first case management conference (CPR 3.13(2)). The budget discussion report must set out (PD 3E para.6A): (a) those figures which are agreed […]

I previously commended on the fact the law has traditionally avoided applying hindsight when assessing the reasonableness of legal costs that have been incurred. This approach was confirmed when applying the old proportionality test in Lownds v Home Office [2002] EWCA Civ 365: “the proportionality of the costs incurred by the claimant should be determined having regard

My recently published article from Medico Legal magazine on whiplash numbers  is now available to view: here.

My annual Costs Lawyer Practising Application form needed to be completed before the end of 2016. As usual, this contained a section asking about the source of instructions during the previous year (solicitor, non-solicitor, legal aid, non-legal aid, etc).  However, this year, for the first time, rather than ask for the percentage of cases falling

Independent economists have criticised the government’s planned personal injury reforms on the basis the reforms would benefit insurers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. The term “independent” is perhaps relative given they were instructed to review the reforms by the Law Society, Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Motor Accident Solicitors Society.  Here we

The run up to Christmas brought us a number of interesting costs developments. A decision from Master Rowley in the Senior Courts Costs Office throws new confusion onto the issue of proportionality.  In King v Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust he expressly disagreed with the decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM v