Legal Cost Specialists
The muddled thinking coming from the anti-Jackson movement continues, as charmingly shown by Nigel Muers-Raby, Chairman of the Consumer Justice Alliance (Law Society Gazette, letters, 26 May). His letter begins: “Your recent article reporting on the increased number of medical negligence claims in 2010 is interesting, but the Medical Defence Union reaches a highly speculative […]
No win, no fee, no logic Read More »
One aspect of the preliminary issues judgment in Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 90201 (Costs) (15 February 2011) that I did not quite understand concerned the cost of security. The claimants’ solicitors had needed to pay for security for their employees whilst working in a dangerous part of the world.
The cost of security Read More »
The amount of the claim for costs in the case of Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 90201 (Costs) (15 February 2011) – £104,707,772.72 – was truly eye-watering. This was, on any analysis, a complex group action involving 30,000 claimants. So, what did Master Hurst have to say about the appropriate
Costs draftsmen hourly rates Read More »
The inconsistent arguments being put forward by the anti-Jackson lobby continue unabated. Access to Justice Group co-ordinator Andrew Dismore was recently reported as saying: “The government must think again and not give in to the special pleading of the fat cat multinational insurance companies, who are the sole beneficiaries of their plans. They will save
Qualified one-way costs shifting Read More »
When considering the issue of what hourly rates to allow, in the preliminary issues judgment in Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 90201 (Costs) (15 February 2011), amongst the relevant factors identified by Master Hurst was: “I have no doubt in this case that Mr Day has taken responsibility for this
Hourly rate or success fee? Read More »
Mike Scutt, writing in Solicitors Journal, referred to a company called Solicitors Holistic Innovations Tactics & Endeavours Ltd. How did he get away with that?
Solicitors Holistic Innovations Tactics & Endeavours Ltd Read More »
Lord Justice Jackson’s most recent observations include: “Even if no success fees were payable (and I am not advocating this), solicitors would still do much PI work. There would simply be less surplus to share out amongst claims management companies, ATE insurers, trade unions etc.” I hope he wasn’t including law costs draftsmen and costs
Surplus to requirements? Read More »
Three cheers for the Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). Words you probably didn’t expect to hear on the Legal Costs Blog. They have been loudly trumpeting their “independent research” into the impact of the Government’s proposals for ‘no win, no fee’ agreements. Press releases, tweets, etc.
No win, no fee, no risk Read More »
Evidence from Berlin shows a clear correlation between the human birth rate and the stork population, thus proving that storks bring babies. Or is this faulty logic? I wonder if we can find some other examples. Step forward the Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). Here are
No win, no fee; no stork, no baby Read More »
Comment appearing on Linkedin discussion forum concerning Jackson implementation: “As a scots lawyer I am reluctant to intrude upon private grief but we have never had CFA’s in Scotland nor recoverable ATE premiums and the world has so far as I am aware from the increasing volume of claims from Scottish claimant solicitors, not yet
A wee bit of common sense Read More »