Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Zenith Chambers, Leeds, & Hardwicke, London
Browse: Home » 2016 » March » 26

COSTS OF IN-HOUSE SOLICITORS: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH

March 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Uncategorized

In Sidewalk Properties Ltd -v- Twinn [2015] UKUT 0122 (LC) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered the issue of the appropriate rates to be charged by an in-house solicitor and the appropriate basis for an inter-partes award. KEY POINTS The…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2019. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Legal Futures Civil Litigation Conference, 2019

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 15,237 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK – WITH VENGEANCE
  • COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS
  • EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
  • DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE
  • “IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE, THIS IS IT”

Top Posts & Pages

  • CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK - WITH VENGEANCE
  • EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
  • COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS
  • DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE
  • "IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE, THIS IS IT"

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death
  • Personal Injury Litigation
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 3rd edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Justice- Standard Order for Directions
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org
  • Zenith Chambers
  • Zenith Personal Injury Blog

Archives

Copyright © 2019 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin