2 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- 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”
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
Top Posts
- THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
- COST BITES 374: IF THIS WAS A CBA THE UNILATERAL ABILITY TO VARY RATES WOULD HAVE LED TO IT BEING SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS UNREASONABLE
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
It’s disgraceful that English litigants are going to have to pay absurdly inflated court fees in order to pay for a legal system that allows foreign litigants such as these to litigate these massive claims in English courts effectively free of charge.
Such litigants should be required to pay court fees that reflect not only the value of the claim and the cost of providing a High Court service but also an additional element to subsidise English litigants who don’t have hundreds of thousands of pounds to waste on a two day hearing.
I realise that such a suggestion would be anathema to the lawyers who parasitically feed off these awful people, but for once they will have to sublimate their own greed to the common weal.
Perhaps the answer is to set the court fee for each party at the same level as their leading Counsel’s fee – by definition that must be reasonable, mustn’t it!
In fact, I’ve had an even better idea. The receiving party should have to pay a sum equivalent to 10% of the difference between the amount of costs claimed and the amount assessed.
So if they claim £200,000 and are awarded £100,000 they would have to pay a sum of £10,000 by way of a contribution to the costs of running the legal system (or even better, the payment should be made to a fund for the assistance of worthy but indigent litigants, provisionally entitled the “Legal Aid Fund”).