WEBINARS AVAILABLE ON DEMAND: WITNESS STATEMENTS; MAZUR; INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION AND PART 36: A HEADY BREW TO LIGHTEN UP ANY LITIGATOR’S DAY…

Four webinars are now available “on demand” from Civil Litigation Brief: PD57AC; Mazur in the Court of Appeal; Informing the Client about the Costs of Litigation; Part 36 recent developments.

THE COSTS

(The costs are £75.00 plus VAT if you are a CLB subscriber and £100 plus VAT for non-subscribers).

If you are a CLB subscriber and do not know the code, email members@civillitigationbrief.com for details.

Webinar: Mastering PD57AC – Getting Witness Statements Right in the Commercial Courts (and the Consequences if You Don’t): Booking details available here.

Witness statements can make—or break—your case in the Commercial Courts. Since the introduction of Practice Direction 57AC in April 2021, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that compliance is not optional. Yet many practitioners continue to fall into the same costly traps.

As one judge observed, PD57AC is often “more honoured in the breach than the observance.” The consequences are increasingly serious: adverse costs orders, judicial criticism, and even key evidence being ruled inadmissible.

This practical and focused webinar cuts through the complexity to show you exactly what the rules require—and how to apply them effectively in real litigation.

Drawing on recent authorities including KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH, Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd, and McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v CITB, we examine how the courts are enforcing PD57AC in practice—and what happens when things go wrong.

Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the implications for Practitioners: Booking details available here.

This webinar looks at the practical implications of the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur, providing detailed guidance and, where necessary checklists for practitioners.

Informing the Client About the Costs of Litigation: Booking details available here  

How failures in costs information are exposing solicitors’ firms — and how to avoid the same outcomes

Recent Legal Ombudsman decisions show that solicitors’ firms are being ordered to repay substantial fees and pay significant compensation for failures in costs information — even where the underlying litigation has been competently conducted.

In Knight (t/a Knight’s Solicitors) v Legal Ombudsman [2025] EWHC 3434 (Admin), the firm was ordered to pay £50,000 in compensation and to repay £65,935.08 in costs to its clients. The Administrative Court refused to interfere. Once the costs complaint was upheld, the firm had no realistic route to challenge the outcome.

Knight is not an outlier. It forms part of a growing line of Ombudsman decisions in which firms have been penalised for:

• Inadequate or unclear costs information
• Inaccurate or misleading estimates
• Failing to keep clients properly informed as litigation develops

This webinar uses Knight and other recent decisions to show where firms are going wrong, how the Legal Ombudsman is approaching costs complaints, and what firms must do to protect themselves.

The session also considers how these issues are treated by the courts, including in solicitor/own client and inter partes assessments, and why costs information given early in a case can have serious consequences long after proceedings have concluded.

What the webinar covers

This practical, defensive session will address:

• How the Legal Ombudsman is approaching costs complaints — and why firms are losing them
• Key Ombudsman decisions where firms have been ordered to repay fees or pay compensation
• Current guidance issued by the Legal Ombudsman
• The duties under the Solicitors Code of Conduct
• Why the duty to inform clients about costs is continuing, not a one-off obligation
• Particular risks that arise when acting under Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs)
• Cases in which inadequate or misleading estimates have led to adverse findings against solicitors
• Why poor estimates can undermine recovery on inter partes assessments
• How to avoid complaints and adverse findings: retainers, letters of advice, and a practical compliance checklist
• Advising a client who complains about costs — should the complaint be taken to the Ombudsman or pursued under the Solicitors Act?

The focus throughout is practical and defensive: what firms need to say, record, update and retain in order to withstand complaints, assessments and scrutiny after the event.

Part 36 Recent developments, what practitioners need to know: Booking details available here

The past 12 months have seen some important cases about Part 36. Every civil litigator needs to keep up to date with these developments. This webinar looks at the cases and considers the practical implications for litigators.

SUBJECTS AND CASES COVERED BY THE WEBINAR

• Is it “unjust” for a party to bear the Part 36 consequences when an offer has only been beaten by a “whisker”?
• What are the consequences when a Part 36 offer is made to a number of defendants but the claimant only succeeds against one of them.
• Does a refusal to mediate have any impact on the Part 36 consequences.
• Should the Part 36 consequences follow when a claimant had effectively offered “nil” on a counterclaim.
• Part 36 and the assessment of costs. How could a party with an order for indemnity costs end up out of pocket.
• How relevant is a Part 36 offer that is withdrawn?
• What factors are considered when determining the rate of interest paid to a claimant who has beaten their own Part 36 offer.
• Can a party argue that an offer was not “clear” when it did not seek clarification?
• Is an offer of “two fields, three tractors and £20,000” an effective Part 36 offer?
• What is the impact of a Part 36 offer when a court is considering making an interim payment?
• Does a “change of mind” amount to a “change of circumstances” so that a party should be given permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer.
• Should interest be awarded on costs before those costs were actually incurred.
• Does an agreement on damages reached after a trial mean that Part 36 no longer occurs.
• Is there a difference between a “judgment” and an “order” for the purpose of Part 36.
• Can an offer on liability alone be effective if the matter proceeds to trial on all issues?
• Does a Part 36 offer oust the impact of fixed costs?
• How is the 21 days prior to trial calculated? Do judicial reading days count?
• Can a respondent to an appeal make a Part 36 offer for more than the case is worth? Is it effective.