Fixed costs pilot imminent for business courts
January 2, 2019
The fixed costs regime could take a significant step forward with the start of a two-year pilot. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee indicated that a new practice direction update is likely to be effective from 14 January extending the implementation of fixed costs.
The pilot emanates from Sir Rupert Jackson’s 2017 costs review, which recommended the roll-out of fixed costs for civil cases.
For more information Click here
Defendants nursing a heavy bill after rejecting chance to settle
November 21, 2018
Defendants who declined to settle costs in a professional negligence claim have been left with a Bill in excess of three times the original estimate. A Court of Appeal ruling by Mrs Justice May found that an error had previously been made in allowing the Defendant to escape the costs consequences of not engaging with the process by dis-applying the Part 36 regime. To read more please Click here
Defendant’s counterclaim lost in QOCS judgement
November 21, 2018
A judgement has muddied the waters on costs-shifting after a Defendant in a PI claim lost his argument in the County Court. He had initiated a counterclaim and tried to receive the costs benefit of being a Claimant, however Her Honour Judge Venn dismissed the counterclaim rejecting the submission that “proceedings”, as used in Civil Procedure Rules should be construed to give the Defendant QOCS (Qualified One-way Costs Shifting) protection. To read more please Click here
No restrictions on applying for Payment on Account of costs after a Costs Order has been made
October 24, 2018
In a recent case, HHJ Matthews has clarified that there is nothing in the rules stating that once an order for costs has been made and sealed, no further application can be made to the court for an order for a payment of a sum on account of those costs under CPR 44.2(8). To read more, please Click Here
Costs disclosure Appeals Dismissed
October 24, 2018
Solicitors are being reassured, after a number of costs challenges, that the court has no jurisdiction to make an order for documents belonging to them following a ruling by Mr Justice Soole. In the cases before Mr Justice Soole, the Claimants wished to challenge against 25% deductions from their damages made by their former lawyers to cover success fees and ATE premiums and sought access to files which were not their property . To read more, please Click Here
