Law Society intervenes in Supreme Court case regarding Claims in the RTA portal
March 3, 2018
In a recent case before the Supreme Court, the Law Society has intervened and submitted that “Insurers are legally bound to pay costs to claimant solicitors for initiating claims in the RTA portal”. The case related to an insurer who settled claims directly then refused to pay costs as set out in the pre-action protocol. The decision of the Supreme Court is awaited. To read more, please Click Here.
Firm Ordered to Deliver Documents to Former Client in Costs Challenge
February 4, 2018
In a recent case before the Senior Courts Costs Office, Master Brown ordered a law firm to deliver documents in their possession allowing its former Client the chance to contest the costs claimed. The Judge was of the view that “transparency will improve the prospect that any dispute as to the defendant’s costs can be resolved without the need for the court’s further intervention”. To read more, please Click Here.
Who should determine a Solicitor’s Demand for Payment?
February 4, 2018
In recent litigation before the High Court, it has been ruled that only a Solicitor can determine “the contents and terms” of their Bill with Soole J commenting that “it is for the Solicitor to provide ‘a bill’ of his costs; and for the process of assessment to deal with any challenge thereto”. To read more, please Click Here.
The Relationship between Proportionality and Reasonableness
February 4, 2018
In a recent appeal case wherein it was being argued that Master Rowley had misapplied the post-2013 proportionality test, His Honour Judge Dight concluded that the new proportionality test is not a “blunt instrument” which can be used by a Judge to substantially reduce reasonable costs to a proportionate amount. The Circuit Judge was further of the view that the “tests of reasonableness and proportionality are intended to work together”. To read more, please Click Here.
Can CPR 36.17(4) dislodge the cap set out in CPR 47.15(5)?
January 1, 2018
In a recent case before the Court of Appeal, the issue to be determined was in respect of costs of a detailed assessment which concluded at provisional assessment stage. According to the Judgment (see link attached), “the question is whether a cap on the amount of costs which can be allowed in respect of the costs of a provisional assessment of costs under CPR rule 47.15(5) applies where the receiving party is awarded costs on the indemnity basis because she has beaten her own Part 36 offer or whether CPR Part 36 entitles the successful receiving party to costs assessed on the indemnity basis without being subject to the cap”. To read more, please Click Here.
