When After-the-Event insurance premiums became recoverable back in 2000, the Costs Practice Direction introduced the following rule as to what should be provided when serving a bill of costs: 32.5(2) – If the additional liability is an insurance premium: a copy of the insurance certificate showing whether the policy covers the receiving party’s own costs; […]
Defective ATE insurance certificates Read More »
As the tension mounts as to what might be going through the mind of Lord Justice Jackson as he prepares his final report on his civil costs review, might he be influenced by the litigation landscape north of the boarder? The recently published Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review states that the majority of
A working alternative to recoverable success fees? Read More »
In a previous posting (read here) I discussed the old rules relating to providing information about the funding of a claim. The latest update to the Civil Procedure Rules has made important amendments which came into force on 1st October 2009. The old CPR 44.3B read: “(1) A party may not recover as
Notification of funding – The New Rules Read More »
The old Practice Direction – Protocols (PDP), at paragraph 4, stated: “A.1 Where a person enters into a funding arrangement within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) he should inform other potential parties to the claim that he has done so. A.2 Paragraph 4A.1 applies to all proceedings whether proceedings to which a
Notification of funding – The Old Rules Read More »
Lord Justice Jackson’s Preliminary Report on Civil Litigation Costs reaches a “tentative conclusion” that: “It seems to me to be in the public interest to promote a substantial extension of BTE insurance, especially insurance in the category BTE1 [Before-the-Event legal expense insurance where insurers pay solicitors to act for the insured when a claim arises].
Jackson Costs Review – Part 4 – Legal Expense Insurance and Success Fees Read More »
Lord Justice Jackson’s Preliminary Report on Civil Litigation Costs seriously considers whether the current two-way costs shifting rules should continue. He writes: “The first possible modification would be to introduce one-way cost shifting. One-way cost shifting means that when the defendant loses, he pays the claimant’s costs; when the claimant loses, each side bears its
Jackson Costs Review – Part 3 – Cost Shifting Read More »
The heart of the problem concerning ATE premium levels was identified recently by Paul Ashurst writing in the New Law Journal: "one party buys insurance cover without handing over any cash and then hands the bill to the other party, who has no say in selecting either the cost or provider". The self-insuring deferred premium,
ATE premiums – What impact market forces? Read More »
