COST (MEGA) BITES 35: THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT THAT LASTED 104 DAYS : COSTS JUDGE REFUSES TO VARY EARLIER DECISION
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc. & Anor [2022] EWHC 2920 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker gave a judgment which finalised a detailed assessment that had lasted 104 days. The judge found that, prior to the assessment concluding, …
WHEN SHOULD COSTS BE SUMMARILY ASSESSED OR SUBJECT TO DETAILED ASSESSMENT? HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
In Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors (Costs) [2022] EWHC 2907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered an argument that the costs of an application should be subject to detailed assessment rather than summarily…
THE “OLD” CONDITIONAL FEE SCHEME WAS IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 6:UNINSURED DEFENDANTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY
Amidst the bustle of recent cases about costs the European Court of Human Rights decision in Coventry v. the United Kingdom – 6016/16 may well be overlooked. The Court found that the “old” system of conditional fee litigation, whereby a defendant was…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 5: WANT TO SEE THE FINAL COURT OF APPEAL ORDER?
The previous post on Belsner indicated that a final order had been made by the Court of Appeal. That order can be seen here BelsnerSEALED ORDER (1) and the text is reproduced below. The interesting aspect of the order is,…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 4: FAIR COSTS AND LEGAL FICTION : PLUS A USEFUL WEBINAR
The latest development in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 is that the unsuccessful claimant has been ordered to pay £130,000 on account of costs and repay £25,000 that was previously paid to her. However, here I…
ESCAPING FIXED COSTS WEBINAR: IF YOU MISSED IT LIVE YOU CAN SEE IT HERE
I put details of this webinar up in early November. Unfortunately the event reached capacity and some people were not able to view it. However it was recorded and it is now available online here. THE WEBINAR Fixed costs…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 94: CLAIMANTS – DO NOT SHOW APPROVAL ADVICES TO THE DEFENDANT
An issue I have seen periodically, but twice this week, is a belief by some claimant solicitors that an advice obtained for the purpose of approval of a civil action for a protected party has to be shown to the…
DEFENDANT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A SINGLE EVIDENTIAL ISSUE: CPR 24.2 CAN BE USED IN THIS CONTEXT
In Holdgate v Bishop [2022] EWHC 2850 (KB) Master Thornett granted the defendant’s application for summary judgement on a specific issue. The Master granted the defendant judgment on the issue of whether the claimant had instructed solicitors to sell land…
DEFENDANT SOLICITOR IN COSTS ASSESSMENT NEED NOT RESPOND TO PART 18 REQUESTS ABOUT PREMIUMS: “THE GENERAL QUESTIONS POSED ARE A PARADIGM EXAMPLE OF A FISHING EXPEDITION”
I am grateful to Nick McDonell from Kain Knight for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge Rowley in Brown -v- JMW Solicitors LLP [2022] 2848 (SCCO). In that case the judge refused to make an order…
CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES AFTER JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWN: NO TIME TO START ACTING UP
The judgment of Mr Justice Foxton in Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd & Ors v Tughans (a firm) [2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm) shows considerable concern about the way in which parties are attempting to deal with issues following the…
PROVING THINGS 242: A SOLICITOR’S SHORTHAND NOTE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ANY WEIGHT AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB), was looked at yesterday on this blog. The judgment also contains an interesting approach to civil evidence at trial. The claimant’s solicitor prepared a witness statement annexing her…
APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION TO REFUSE TO ADMIT WITNESS STATEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES
I am grateful to barrister Jake Rowley for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). Mr Justice Garnham refused an appeal when a judge had held that a witness…
COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE “SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE”: THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS USUALLY THE START AND FINISH OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF
The judgment of Mrs Justice Heather Williams in Lydford v Skinner [2021] EWHC 3783 (QB) could well appear in the “Proving Things” series. A claimant’s action for damages for personal injury failed because he failed to establish that an occupier was…
I’M PICKING UP BAD CITATIONS: USE LAW REPORTS – DON’T SURF THE NET
There is a short postscript to the judgment of Paul Bowen KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in YR, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 2813 (Admin), which is of general importance….
COST BITES 34: INTERLOCUTORY COSTS ORDERS CAN BE MADE AGAINST PARTIES WITH THE PROTECTION OF QOCS (IT IS ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE)
In Atmani & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2618 (KB) Senior Master Fontaine considered the costs consequences of the decisions made in her judgment, considered in an earlier post. The Master held that…
JUDGMENT ON ADMISSIONS ONLY AVAILABLE WHERE LIABILITY TO PAY DAMAGES IS ADMITTED: INTERIM COSTS ORDERS REQUIRE SCHEDULES TO BE AT COURT: LESSONS FROM THE GRENFELL LITIGATION
In Abdel-Kader & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB)Senior Master Fontaine considered the basis for applying for judgment and interim costs. The claimants had not identified the basis upon which judgment was…
COST BITES 33: BUDGETS: PROPORTIONALITY, COUNSEL’S FEES (“STRATOSPHERIC”, OR “ASPIRATIONAL”) THE COST OF EXPERTS AND THE COSTS OF TRIAL
There is a detailed exposition of the principles relating to costs budgeting in the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in Various Sam Borrowers v BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 1 Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2594 (Ch). The judgment…
COST BITES 32 : NON-PARTY COSTS ORDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS: A WORKING EXAMPLE
In OCM Maritime Nile Llc & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors [2022] EWHC 2696 (Comm) Sir Andrew Smith considered, and applied, the principles relating to non-party costs orders against directors. “I infer that the defence of the claims…
LAWYERS SHOULD NOT BE RUDE TO COURT STAFF (INDEED, NOT RUDE TO ANYONE): A WORRYING REPORT
The Oxford Mail carries a story on the 4th November which is highly disturbing. The headline says it all “Judge adjourns case for a week after reports of ‘barristers abusing court staff'” This, if established, is appalling behaviour. Rude, abhorrent…
COST BITES 31: ASKING THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE COSTS WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE SETTLED ISSUES: YOU MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT…
In Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors v SVS Securities PLC & Ors (Consequential Matters) [2022] EWHC 1431 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith considered the issues that arise when the parties have settled a large number of issues in an action,…
PROVING THINGS 241: “IT IS EXTRAORDINARY HOW MUCH OF THE CASE WAS BEING ‘PATCHED UP’ AS THE TRIAL WENT ALONG”
The judgment of HHJ Luba KC in Ibrahim v London Borough Of Haringey & Anor [2022] EW Misc 9 (CC) shows a surprising approach to evidence on the part of the both sides. “Given the nominal value of the claim,…
COST BITES 30: OTHER PEOPLE’S BUDGETS: NONE OF THESE BUDGETS IS UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE
It is always interesting to look at the figures involved in relation to costs budgeting. We can see an example in the decision of Mr Roger Ter Haar KC in University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd &…
COST BITES 29: THE PRINCIPLES OF BUDGETING CONSIDERING AND APPLIED: 15% REDUCTION TO BUDGET
In Associated Newspapers Ltd v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd (Cost Budgeting) [2022] EWHC 2767 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar KC considered principles relating to the budgeting process. He reduced a budget by 15% across the board. “In my judgment, the…
BOOK REVIEW: GUIDE TO ACCIDENTS AT WORK: BRETT DIXON: ESSENTIAL READING
Brett Dixon’s book is essential reading for all those involved in litigation relating to accidents at work. Much has happened since the previous edition in 2008 and this book deals with all the essential elements a litigator involved in this…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 3: THE COMMENTARY: A DOZEN POSTS TO THINK ABOUT
There is no shortage of commentary on the Belsner case. I have rounded up a dozen posts here. Unusually those representing both sides (and the intervenor) have given some commentary. I have set out the links below. TWO…
HALLOWEEN FOR LAWYERS: SCARY THINGS: RESURRECTING NIGHTMARES FROM THE PAST
Halloween may, and should, be more muted this year. I had planned to write a post on delays in the civil courts, which can be really scary. I will save this from another date. Instead I have resurrected contributions from…
COST BITES 28: APPEALING AGAINST AN ORDER FOR COSTS: THE MAJOR HURDLE INVOLVED AND THE RELEVANCE OF A NON-PART 36 OFFER TO SETTLE
In TMO Renewables Ltd v Yeo & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1409 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order for costs. The case is a reminder of the difficulty in appealing a decision as to costs. Further…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 2: WELL THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY (2): “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTENTIOUS AND NON-CONTENTIOUS COSTS IS OUTDATED AND ILLOGICAL”
Continuing with the analysis of the judgment in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 we now look at the decision in relation to whether these were contentious or non-contentious costs. “the distinction between contentious and non-contentious…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 1: WELL – THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY
The first point that has to be made about the decision in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 relates to economics. The argument that took four days in the Court of Appeal was over a small…
COST BITES 27: WHAT DOES “PROCEEDINGS” MEAN: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL IN RELATION TO QOCS AND A MIXED CLAIM
In Achille v Lawn Tennis Association Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1407 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word “proceedings” in the costs of a claimant bringing a “mixed claim” for damages. It held that it was…
SECOND COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON COSTS TODAY: A WARNING SHOT FIRED AFTER BELSNER
Fast on the heels of the judgment in Belsner today was the Court of Appeal decision in Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388, where a clear warning shot was fired in relation to the practice of seeking…
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL IN BELSNER -V- CAM: DECISION CAN BE FOUND HERE
The Court of Appeal have allowed the appeal in Belsner -v- Cam Legal Services. The judgment [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 can be found here. I will conduct a detailed analysis of the decision in the near future. Here are the…
“HE LACKED THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION”: A CASE WHERE NO SPECIFIC RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON AN EXPERT’S EVIDENCE
In Eaton v Auto-Cycle Union Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2642 (KB) Mr Justice Turner was critical of the expert evidence called by the claimant. “Quite simply, he lacked the necessary expertise to substantiate and justify his conclusions. It…
FATAL ACCIDENTS 2023: SEEING THE CLIENT; UNDERSTANDING THE LAW; THE SCHEDULE: GETTING THINGS RIGHT: TAKING CARE OF YOUR CLIENTS AND YOURSELVES: A SERIES OF WEBINARS TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH IT
Alongside solicitor Hilary Wetherell we are presenting a series of webinars to take practitioners through the major elements of personal injury law, practice and procedure. Each webinar can be viewed as a stand alone webinar as well as being part…
COST BITES 26: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT WAS FAR FROM PERFECT BUT DID NOT JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS
In Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2688 (KB) HHJ Howells (sitting as a High Court Judge) did not accept the claimant’s argument that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that indemnity costs should be ordered….
WEBINAR ON CARE, AIDS & APPLIANCES CLAIMS AFTER MUYEPA -v- THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: 18th NOVEMBER 2022
I have already written three times about the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). I have not explored in detail the important observations in that judgment in relation to claiming, and presenting,…
EXPERTS SHOULD CONSTANTLY REMIND THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION THAT THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE LITIGANT’S “TEAM”: JUDGE CRITICAL OF PARTISAN APPROACH
We are, again, mining the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). This time in relation to the judge’s comments and findings in relation to the expert evidence, in particular the non-medical evidence…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHERE 3% OF THE CLAIMED DAMAGES ARE AWARDED THE WHOLE CLAIM IS DEFINITELY TAINTED
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). The judgment recounts the history and detail of the legislation and principles governing fundamental dishonesty before applying them to the facts…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: “BUT WHAT OF THE MENDACIOUS WITNESS?”
In Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter set out detailed considerations for assessing witness credibility. Here we look at the description of the process of analysing the credibility of the witnesses. “But what…
TWO ISSUES: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: ATTEMPTING TO RE-OPEN A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF OMISSIONS IN THE JUDGMENT: ADVOCATES NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION CAREFULLY
There are two aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Cazalet v Abu-zalaf [2022] EWFC 119 that are of general interest to litigators. Firstly the judge’s observations as to witness credibility. Secondly the observations in relation to re-opening…
“BOILERPLATE” STATEMENTS OF THE LAW MUST BE TREATED WITH CIRCUMSPECTION: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators), Re [2022] EWCA Civ 1348 Lady Justice King set out a note of warning about cases where agreed notes of the relevant law are relied on. It may be better for the law to…
OUR OLD FRIEND THE ABSENT WITNESSES: WHAT INFERENCES CAN AND SHOULD THE COURT DRAW? THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES
We are returning to a decision looked and before, and a familiar issue to this blog, in looking again at the judgment HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen…
JUDGE FINDS PROCESS BY WHICH EXPERT REPORT OBTAINED “SO FLAWED, AND THE MATERIAL ON WHICH IT IS BASED SO LIMITED AND CONJECTURAL THAT IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG FOR ME TO PLACE ANY WEIGHT ON IT WHATSOVER”
In de Renee v Galbraith-Marten [2022] EWFC 118 Mr Justice Mostyn commented on an expert report that one of the parties sought to introduce. The report had been obtained in breach of the rules. It did not comply with the…
ESCAPING FIXED COSTS: KINGS CHAMBERS WEBINAR: 2nd NOVEMBER 2022
My colleagues Andrew Hogan and Paul Hughes are presenting a webinar on the 2nd November 2022 4 – 5pm on “escaping fixed costs”. The webinar is free. Booking details are available here. NB the live event is now “full”. It…
ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL
We see a familiar story in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC). The witness statements of the claimant…
PROCEDURAL DEFAULTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: ADJOURNMENTS OF TRIALS AND APPARENT BIAS
I first looked at the judgment in Saunders v Bristol Magistrates Court [2022] EWHC 2544 (Admin) because my attention was drawn towards the sub-heading “Procedural Defaults”. There were defaults. However this facts of this matter are important in themselves. …
RECENT CASES ON LOSS OF EARNINGS: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 21st NOVEMBER 2022
I am presenting a webinar “Recent Cases on Loss of Earnings: What you need to know” on the 21st November. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar looks at recent cases in relation to loss of earnings and…
COST BITES 25: DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT LEADS TO COSTS BEING AWARD ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
Those who write “robust” letters of response to a letter before action may benefit from reading the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors [2022] EWHC 2575 (Comm). The judge held that costs…
PROVING THINGS 240: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
There are many edicts warning against reliance upon judgments that concern permission to appeal. However the judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Harrison v TUI UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2557 (KB) is of interest in the “Proving Things” series and…
WHAT GOES ON IN LEEDS STAYS IN LEEDS: ANOTHER MISSIVE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In Bhimsinhji & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Determination as to Venue) [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham reiterated a point that has been made several times before in relation to venue for hearing in…
You must be logged in to post a comment.