Author name: Simon Gibbs

There is a firm of costs solicitors whose website states, as one of the reasons to instruct them to deal with costs budgeting: “As a firm of solicitors, all of our advocates have rights of audience at CCMCs, something which costs draftsmen and costs lawyers who are not employed by solicitors do not.” It is […]

Costs budgeting is currently one of the great failures of the Jackson reforms, despite the ever hopeful views expressed by some members of the judiciary.  Many explanations can be given but the comments made by Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in his keynote speech at the Costs Law Reports Conference 2016 are revealing: “the expectation of Jackson

It is obvious that all those involved in civil litigation need to understand the operation of the “without prejudice” rule, be they insurance claims handlers, paralegals, solicitors, costs lawyers, etc. The recent decision of Chief Master Marsh in Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) considered whether an exception to this rule

Those hoping that the fallout from Brexit would kick any further costs reforms into the long grass are likely to be disappointed. The government has announced: “More needs to be done to control the costs of civil cases so they are proportionate to the case, and legal costs are more certain from the start. Building

I have previously commented on the issue of the timing of orders for interim costs payments. CPR 44.2(8) reads: “Where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs, unless there is good reason not to do so.”

On Day One of Contract Law they teach you that if a party makes an offer (“Offer A”) and the other party rejects the offer, the rejection of the offer means Offer A is no longer open for acceptance in the future. They also teach you that if a party makes an offer (“Offer B”)

I am delighted to announce that Gibbs Wyatt Stone has won the prestigious ‘Law Costs Firm of the Year’ award. I have to confess that this did not come as a complete surprise.  Readers may recall we had previously been awarded ‘Most Outstanding Law Firm of 2016, the UK’ by Wealth & Finance INTL magazine. 

When costs budgeting was first introduced there was a fair amount of uncertainty as to when the budgets should be filed and exchanged (a problem caused by the apparent conflict in wording between the rules and the contents of the directions questionnaire). The latest version of the rules (coming into force on 6 April 2016

Costs Law Reports’ latest Costs Bulletin contains some interesting comments on the new proportionality test. Giving the background to the previous approach: “Hitherto, there are rules and a body of case law which enable matters such as hourly rates, success fees and the indemnity principle to be predicted with a degree of certainty. In this

The mysterious issue of the disappearing (according to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers) whiplash claims merits some further analysis. On-line information quotes the number of whiplash claims in 2010/11 as being 571,111.  That year there were 790,999 overall motor claims.  The number of non-whiplash claims was therefore 219,888 (790,999 less 571,111). If (according to