Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2018 » April » 29

REDUCTION IN VALUE OF CLAIM AND REDUCTION IN HOURLY RATES DID NOT REPRESENT A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE BUDGET

April 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Jallow v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B7 (Costs) Master Rowley rejected an argument that  the settlement of a claim for a sum less than that claimed and a  reduction in hourly rates for incurred costs represented  “good reasons”…

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER:  PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT'S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER: PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

April 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Wall v Munday [2018] EWHC 879 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) allowed an appeal in relation to costs.  The judge at first instance had ordered the claimant to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs. That…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 440: WHY INDEMNITY COSTS WERE ORDERED A LOOK AT THE CLAIMANTS’ PLEADED CASE: FIRSTLY IT WAS PLEADED TOO WIDELY, SECONDLY THERE WERE THEN ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE CASE OUTSIDE THE PLEADINGS
  • CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS COMING UP LATER THIS YEAR: A NEW DISCOUNT CODE
  • COST BITES 439 : IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COSTS BUDGET A REASON NOT TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS ?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE RELEVANCE OF THE CLIENTS BEING SOLELY AT FAULT: SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES TO TACKLE
  • COST BITES 438 : CLAIMANT’S UNTENABLE ARGUMENTS LEADS TO REDUCTION IN COSTS RECOVERED: HOURLY RATES FAR TOO HIGH, EVEN WHEN THE CLAIM WAS “ONLY” FOR £9 MILLION

Top Posts

EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY "WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT" TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

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
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.