One Response
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
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE "ON DEMAND"
- 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"
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
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
In my view a claim can be run by a claimant in one of two primary ways. (1) On the basis that a settlement will be achieved. (2) One the basis that the claim will got to trial.
Traditionally, both ways had their advantages.
With the introduction of QOCS and the abandonment of necessity in the assessment of the proportionality of costs there most viable way of conducting a claim is on the basis that the claim will go to a trial.
The difference between the approaches may seem conjured up and minute. But the reality is that they are very different in terms of the costs that are incurred and where they are incurred. The former is reactive and latter is pro-active.
Doing work reactively is fine if the defendant is pragmatic. If not, additional costs will be incurred (that may be difficult to justify on a paper assessment). Furthermore, a reactive approach potentially saves costs for a defendant (e.g. can deny a claim without filing a defence and without obtaining expert evidence).
By acting purely pro-actively a claimant controls the pace of the claim, incurs the minimum costs to trial, puts pressure on a defendant with those justifiable costs and puts pressure on the defendant to incur his own irrecoverable costs. Settlement is treated as a bonus rather than the aim.
The pro-active approach flies in the face of ADR, but the rules encourage the claimant to act pro-actively and the defendant to give it a whirl.
Arguably, the government has increased court fees (with plans for further increases) to either deter the sort of litigation that the rules encourage or to capitalise on it.