Legal Cost Specialists
The first problem with the vanity legal awards industry is that they are often ridiculously wide in the nature of the awards they seek to distribute, to the extent to which the awards are meaningless (even if they were distributed on merit). For example, Wealth & Finance INTL magazine previously awarded Gibbs Wyatt Stone ‘Most […]
Most Outstanding Legal Costs Litigation Firm 2018 – London Read More »
In a speech given earlier in the year, Lord Justice Jackson recognised that the profession was becoming “impatient” for guidance on the proportionality test from the Court of Appeal. He concluded: “The remedy lies in their own hands. The Court of Appeal can only decide the cases which come before it.” In May v Wavell Group
Court of Appeal guidance on proportionality Read More »
Hailsham Chambers has reported on the Court of Appeal decision in the appeal of Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726. This concerns the correct approach where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer after expiry of the 21 day period. Many claimants have argued that the claimant should be entitled to recover indemnity
Late acceptance by defendant of Part 36 offer Read More »
The Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker prefaced his recent decision on proportionality, in Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs), with the warning: “this judgment should not be taken as any attempt at providing guidance. I say that because I know that anything said about
Additional work and proportionality Read More »
Although those working in legal costs tend to get very excited about the latest obscure technical challenge, it is the routine areas of dispute that have the greatest impact on the largest number of cases. A costs judge allowing an hourly rate of 20% more or less than anticipated will usually completely throw any offers
Hourly rates for personal injury work Read More »
The Costs & Fees Encyclopaedia continues to expand year-by-year and the 2018-19 Edition runs to 551 pages. (It rather optimistically describes itself as “portable” and suitable for a briefcase. It is plainly a desktop reference guide.) Pages 1-96 consist of the relevant costs provisions of the CPR and Practice Directions. Pages 97-102 provides J-Code “cheat sheets”.
Costs & Fees Encyclopaedia 2018-19 Read More »
One of the long running battle grounds in costs litigation concerns the consequences of naming the wrong opponent in a conditional fee agreement. Because this is ultimately a contractual issue, it remains just as relevant today as under the now revoked Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations. Paying parties argue that no costs are recoverable where the
Naming wrong defendant in CFA Read More »
We now have compulsory electronic bills of costs. What we do not have are up to date rules relating to service. PD 47 para.5.A4, dealing with transitional provisional provisions, makes it clear that the new electronic bill must itself must be served: “Where a bill of costs otherwise falls within paragraph 5.1(a) but work was
Serving an electronic bill of costs Read More »
The new electronic bill of costs is now upon us and it already causing confusion at the most basic level. Costs Lawyer magazine reports ACL council member Claire Green, who has paid a key role in the development of the new bill and as been running the ACL’s training courses on the new bill, warning:
Filing electronic bill of costs Read More »
Gordon Exall’s excellent Civil Litigation Brief has a post reporting the decision in Cross v Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited (Sheffield County Court) concerning the appropriate consequences of a party not serving a statement of costs at least 24 hours before a hearing. His Honour Judge Robinson summarised the issue thus: “Miss Buck who did not appear
Failure to file a Statement of Costs in advance of hearing Read More »