-
For whom the Belsner tolls…do not let it toll for you
In the unlikely event you have not considered the lengthy (23 pages) judgment of the Court of Appeal or indeed perused one of the very many detailed and informative summaries of the case Belsner v Cam Legal Services Limited or perhaps you are a visitor…
-
Harman Costs Brief – May 2017
In this issue Costs Lawyer Suzanna Popplewell gives an overview of Proportionality; we look at CFAs and ATE Premiums and also feature a budget preparation fee explanation. Not forgetting it’s the month of the London Legal Walk! We hope you find the latest issue of…
Tags: ATE, budget fee, budget preparation, budgeted costs, budgeting, CCMC, CFA, Civil Court Proceedings Fees, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, costs, costs budget, costs management, Court of Appeal, Court of Protection, CPR, Deeds of Variation, Detailed Assessment, disproportionate, fixed costs, fixed fees, General Management, hearing fees, LASPO, LLST, London Legal Walk, Lord Justice Jackson, Merrix, PD3E, Practice Direction, pre/post April 2013, Precedent H, Professional Deputy Costs, proportionality, SCCO, success fees, Supreme Court -
CFAs and ATE Premiums
Post LASPO Deeds of Variation and Assignments The Supreme Court has ruled that post LASPO variations to a pre-LASPO CFA did not constitute “new agreements” – see Plevin –v- Paragon Finance Ltd [2017] UKSC 23. There were two subsequent Deeds of Variation which respectively covered…
-
Court report – Gary Knight highlights some interesting recent costs cases for Litigation Funding
Litigation Funding – Court Report – Feb 2017 pg 1 Litigation Funding – Court Report – Feb 2017 pg 2 Litigation Funding – Court Report – Feb 2017 pg 3
-
Harmans Costs Brief – December 2016
Welcome to the December Costs Brief, the final issue of 2016. Partner Gary Knight has provided a thorough costs update with a particular focus on ATE and we’ve also looked at the decision of Costs Judge Jennifer James in the matter of Briggs vs First…
Tags: ATE, Autumn Statement, CFA, costs, Costs Brief, costs budget, Costs Judge, costs seminar, CPR, Denton, Detailed Assessment, disproportionate, IPT, LASPO, Legal costs update, Mitchell, Part 36 offer, payments on account, proportionality, relief from sanctions, Statement of Reasons, success fees -
Court of Protection: Costs Law Update
Is it acceptable to transfer the method of funding from Public to under a CFA? Whilst the recovery of additional items was abolished for most claims post April 2013 we still see very many matters where the agreements pre-date the shut off point and the…
Tags: ATE, CFA, costs, Costs Judge, CPR, Denton, Detailed Assessment, Mitchell, relief from sanctions, success fees -
Helen Briggs & 598 Ors v First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd (2016)
A very detailed and considered decision of Costs Judge Jennifer James has appeared on Lawtel in the matter Helen Briggs & 598 Ors v First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd (2016) and merits consideration in full; the highlights however are as follows: As will be…
-
Late Costs Budgets: Risks and Consequences
Lowin v W Portsmouth & Co LTD [2016] EWHC 2301 QBD Elisabeth Laing J – 20/06/16 An appeal against a decision of a Costs Judge following a provisional assessment of the receiving party’s costs. The Claimant was entitled to costs following a successful claim for…
Tags: ATE, case management conference, CFA, costs, costs budgets, Costs Judge, costs law, Court of Appeal, Denton, Detailed Assessment, Litigants in Person, Lord Justice Jackson, Mesothelioma, Mitchell, Part 36 offer, Part 47, Points of Dispute, Precedent H, proportionality, Provisional Assessment, relief from sanctions, success fees -
Gary Knight on Litigation Funding and Costs
To what extent has the costs profession evolved since its inception, and have there been any key milestones of particular significance? I started in costs in 1983 – even then the rules applied to costs were being scrutinised with a proposed simpler format being introduced…
-
Post April 2013 success fees – interesting decision & Judgment
The headline on Twitter read, “Ruling casts doubt on PI lawyers’ model of recovering success fee from damages” which is perhaps a somewhat sensationalised version of the ruling itself. It refers to the case of A (1) and M (2) (both by their Litigation Friend)…
