Legal Cost Specialists
This week’s Law Gazette brings further bad news as to the prospects for the new claims process in an article (link to external site) and in its lead opinion (link to external site).
Further despair for new claims process Read More »
I’ve recently come across the following video. The message itself is somewhat confused in that it starts by commenting on an attack that was launched on a defendant lawyer and then somehow uses this to support arguments concerning there being a “compensation culture”. Nevertheless, I present it here as it at least gives something of
Evidence of the compensation culture? Read More »
The constant refrain from claimant representatives whenever a paying party seeks to question the accuracy of a bill of costs is that one should not seek to go behind the signature to the bill unless there is a “genuine issue” as to whether the bill is accurate, and the case of Bailey v IBC Vehicles
Hourly Rates and the RPI Read More »
Arnold J recently delivered some stinging criticism of the current approach to controlling legal costs. In the case of Research in Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation [2008] EWHC 3026 (Pat) he stated: “the traditional approach to costs control of litigation in this country, which is after the event by way of an assessment of
Criticism of the current costs system Read More »
Welcome to the new Legal Costs Blog. Although the blog is officially launching today, we have added some content already and some archive material to give you an idea of the kind of thing to expect. Please browse around and leave a comment as to what you think and let us know if you have
Welcome to The Legal Costs Blog Read More »
The limit for claims allocated to the fast track is to be raised from £15,000 to £25,000 for proceedings issued on or after 6 April 2009. As a consequence of this change, the fixed fast track trial costs recoverable by counsel, or other advocate, will increase to £1,650 for claims with a value of more
Fast Track Trial Costs Read More »
The recent decision in Birmingham City Council v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) is a worrying one both for Defendants and for the legal profession generally. This was an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Supreme Court Costs Office. Unusually, for a case heard in Birmingham District Registry, the Senior Costs
Birmingham City Council v Forde Read More »
The recent Court of Appeal decision in C v W [2008] EWCA Civ 1459 was concerned with a CFA with a success fee that was entered into after liability had been admitted by the Defendant’s insurers. This judgment, in many respects, follows the earlier decision of Haines v Sarner [2005] EWHC 90009 (Costs), in which
CPR 47.19 allows a party to make an offer to settle the costs of proceedings. The corresponding Costs Practice Direction states that, unless the offer states otherwise, the offer will be treated as being inclusive of the cost of preparation of the bill, interest and VAT. It might therefore be assumed that if a Part