2 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
- ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
- COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)
Top Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI "HALLUCINATED" CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
- IT WOULD BE AN "AFFRONT TO JUSTICE" NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS "FINAL" JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
- SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: ITS USE IN A TRIAL ABOUT... SCAFFOLDING
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
Worth noting that 36.17(3) places no such limit on the defendant’s right to costs where the claimant fails to beat an offer.
CPR 45.29F effectively caps the Defendant’s costs at what the equivalent Claimant fixed costs would have been. I have only had a brief read through the Judgment but it doesn’t appear to have been argued at any point that the award of indemnity costs would of itself constitute an exceptional circumstance to depart from the Fixed Costs Regime pursuant to CPR 45.29J. Given the lack of definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance it would certainly be open to the court, in my view, to go down that route to justify an award of costs in excess of fixed costs.