PART 36 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: PRE-ISSUE OFFER WAS VALID; EMAIL SERVICE DID NOT NUGATE THE OFFER: DEFENDANT TO BEAR (MOST OF) THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES

PART 36 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: PRE-ISSUE OFFER WAS VALID; EMAIL SERVICE DID NOT NUGATE THE OFFER: DEFENDANT TO BEAR (MOST OF) THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES

There are some interesting discussions and findings in relation to the rules relating to Part 36 offers in the judgment of Vernonique Buehrelen KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Coldunell Ltd v Hotel Management International Ltd [2022] EWHC…

KINGS CHAMBERS COSTS GROUP WEBINAR ON BELSNER: 1st DECEMBER 2022

This webinar by Kings Chambers on the 1st December 2022 gives litigators a chance to consider the practical implications of the Belsner decision. THE PRESENTERS My colleagues  Craig Ralph and Andrew Hogan will consider the significance of the Belsner and Karatysz cases,…

COST BITES 36: THE POINT OF A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT IS TO REIMBURSE THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY IMMEDIATELY

COST BITES 36: THE POINT OF A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT IS TO REIMBURSE THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY IMMEDIATELY

In Tulip Trading Ltd v Ver [2022] EWHC 2970 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk considered the factors involved when making an interim payment on account of costs. “The point of a payment on account is to provide the successful party with…

"THERE IS NO PORTAL FOR LOW VALUE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS": FIXED COSTS DID NOT APPLY

“THERE IS NO PORTAL FOR LOW VALUE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS”: FIXED COSTS DID NOT APPLY

I am grateful to Paul Balen for sending me a case report of a product liability case he was involved in.  The judge found that a product liability case is not required to be lodged in the portal.   This had…

COST BITES 35: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT SUCCESS FEES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: 20% REDUCED TO 15% BY COSTS JUDGE

COST BITES 35: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT SUCCESS FEES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: 20% REDUCED TO 15% BY COSTS JUDGE

The judgment of Costs Judge Brown in MNO v HKC & Anor [2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO) considers the question of an appropriate success fee between solicitor and client in a personal injury case.  The judge did not accept the argument…

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

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

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…

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"

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…

COST BITES 34: INTERLOCUTORY COSTS ORDERS CAN BE MADE AGAINST PARTIES WITH THE PROTECTION OF QOCS (IT IS ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE)

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…

COST BITES 33: BUDGETS: PROPORTIONALITY, COUNSEL'S FEES ("STRATOSPHERIC", OR "ASPIRATIONAL") THE COST OF EXPERTS AND THE COSTS OF TRIAL

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

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…

COST BITES 31:  ASKING THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE COSTS WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE SETTLED ISSUES: YOU MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT...

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,…

COST BITES 30: OTHER PEOPLE'S BUDGETS: NONE OF THESE BUDGETS IS UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE

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

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…

ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 3: THE COMMENTARY:   A DOZEN POSTS TO THINK ABOUT

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…

COST BITES 28: APPEALING AGAINST AN ORDER FOR COSTS: THE MAJOR HURDLE INVOLVED AND THE RELEVANCE OF A NON-PART 36 OFFER TO SETTLE

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"

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

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…