Costs Consequences of not Disclosing Information
May 22, 2018
In a recent case, a defendant who argued that a costs order should be made after the discontinuance of a claim, was denied a full costs order. The matter involved a clinical negligence case wherein new evidence emerged for the first time during cross-examination of a defendant witness on the third day of the trial which shut the Claimant’s case down on factual causation. To read more, please Click Here.
Victory for Claimant Lawyers over Third Party Capture of Claims
April 29, 2018
In a recent case before the Supreme Court, Justices ruled that insurers should not have approached clients after Gavin Edmondson Solicitors had filed the claim, in turn, depriving the lawyers of costs to which they would otherwise have been entitled. Originally the case was decided in the insurers favour but the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal before being taken to the Supreme Court. In essence, the case involved insurers using Client’s details provided by the lawyers to settle directly thus depriving lawyers of costs. To read more, please Click Here.
Should an Electronic Bill be filed at Court when serving Notice of Commencement?
April 29, 2018
Given the tensions between paragraphs 5.A4 and 5.1A of practice direction 47, Andrew Gordon-Saker was asked for his views on whether electronic copies of bills should be filed at court when notice of commencement is served on the paying party. Master Gordon-Saker’s personal view was that “electronic copies of the bill should not be filed at court when notice of commencement is served on the paying party”.To read more, please Click Here.
The Implications of making a good Part 36 offer but failing to file a Budget
April 29, 2018
In a recent case before the Court, Channel 5 has been penalised after making a good part 36 offer but failing to file a budget. Costs Budgets had to be filed by 2nd December 2016 which Channel 5 failed to do despite the Claimant’s Solicitors drawing their attention to rule 3.14. Channel 5 however argued that the implications of this rule should not apply for the period before the costs management hearing on 19th December 2017. To read more, please Click Here.
Potential Consequences of failing to notify Defendant of CFA and ATE insurance (Pre April 2013 case)
April 2, 2018
A Claimant who signed a CFA in June 2010 and then in March 2012 with another firm when the fee earner moved, has lost a second appeal against refusal of relief from sanction for failing to notify the Defendant about his CFA and ATE insurance within 7 days (in a pre-April 2013 case). A letter before claim in September 2012 notified the Defendant of the second CFA and ATE however the first CFA was only notified with the bill of costs. The Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was rejected at first instance by Deputy District Judge Elmer and, on appeal, this was upheld by HHJ Hampton. After a second appeal, the Court upheld the Deputy District Judge’s decision. To read more, please Click Here.
