3 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
Top Posts
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
What if your original CFA exculded Appeals?Does this mean you can recover a success fee and a ATE premium for the Appeal or does it mean you have the worst of both worlds i.e. no recoverable success fee ,obliged to take out another ATE policy the premium for which will be high and not recoverable and a costs order against you if you lose.
The absurdity of the decision is that a Claimant is effectively unable to appeal unless they have very deep pockets. So much for access to justice.
What would be the position where the claimant had a CFA pre April 13 but his solicitors abandoned the claim due to low prospects, and the claimant then entered into a post LASPO CFA with new solicitors? Is he deprived of QOCs because he had had a pre commencement CFA even if that CFA is no longer in force?