3 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- MEMBER NEWS: NEW ADAPTATION TO ENSURE THAT YOU CAN CLICK STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THE POST YOU WANT
- MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC”: SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES
- 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…
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
- MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY "CONDUCT LITIGATION": THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: "TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT"
- 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...)
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: "HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC": SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES
- 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...)
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
£208,000 costs for a claim which settled for £25,000 before the Defences had been served? I cannot help thinking that, had there been a solicitor on the record, that solicitor would have got an earful from the Costs Judge.
I have 2 main issues with this trend:
(1) It creates such a level of uncertainty regarding costs recovery that neither party can gain a grasp of what to offer or accept.
(2)
‘It may be that such advice proves to be a driver for the costs to be reduced or for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to be explored.’
Unfortunately, for CFA cases, this is just plain wrong.
The old and new regime are similar in that neither provide an incentitive to a claimant on a CFA to settle for anything less than the most damages possible.
A savvy solicitor may realize that the costs will soon become disproportionate to the sums in issue, and he may wish to act on that, but the solicitor’s professional obligation to ‘act in his client’s best interests’ compels him to act against his own best interest (i.e. make a good effective early Part 36 offer).