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…
A SERIES OF WEBINARS ON “STAYING SAFE” IN PERSONAL INJURY PRACTICE: BRIGHTEN UP YOUR NEW YEAR
To help 2021 run smoothly for litigators I am presenting a series of webinars in February and March on the theme of “staying safe” in the running of personal injury cases. The webinars look at key areas of practice and…
COSTS ISSUES IN A CASE WHERE THE CLAIMANTS HAVE TO PAY £30 MILLION: WHY IT IS UNWISE TO BANK ON WINNING
A reminder of the sheer size, and major dangers, of group litigation can be seen in the judgment today in Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors [2020] EWHC 1870 (Ch). The judgment relates to the costs of the action…
WEBINARS ON LAW, PROCEDURE AND DAMAGES: READ ALL ABOUT THEM…
Since lockdown has made giving live presentations impossible I have been involved in presenting a number of webinars. This would seem a good time to set them out. Those that have been given earlier this year are still available on…
CLAIMANT’S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE OUTCOME NOT GROUNDS FOR MAKING A DIFFERENT COSTS ORDER
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Campbell -v- Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 2121 (QB) emphasises the difficulties for a claimant who has accepted a Part 36 offer late. The claimant had to bear the usual costs consequences and…
QOCS IN “MIXED “CASES: THE COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKS
In the judgment today in Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1724 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of QOCS in “mixed cases”. The judgment requires careful reading. Generally speaking all personal…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 56: ADVISING ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”
The difficulties facing those giving advice about litigation is summed up in a judgment of Sedley LJ “Clients, I know, want two inconsistent things. They want confident advice on which they can act, and they want cautionary advice about the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (AS A BLOG): A REVIEW OF ADVICE RECEIVED FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND ACROSS THE WORLD
Today marks the 6th anniversary of the blog. Last year I did a detailed review of many of the series and key points over the previous years. To celebrate this year I am concentrating on the contributions made by others….
LAWYERS, DEADLINES AND PROCRASTINATION: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? (“A DEADLINE… THAT IS ALL”)
Many of the cases that appear on this blog, particularly those dealing with sanctions and service, arise because things are left to the very last minute. We have looked before at lawyers and procrastination. I thought that perhaps this is…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
EXTENSIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS OF NO USE: A COMMON FINDING
We have already looked at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cockerill in Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm). It is worth looking at what the judge had to say about the witness evidence before…
NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE “ACCEPTANCE” OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE
In Devoy-Williams -v- High Cartwright & Amin [2018] EWHC 2815 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk upheld a decision that an action was struck out and that relief from sanctions should not be granted. It is a reminder (amongst other things) of…
ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR’S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE – THREE TIMES
In Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2347 the Court of Appeal turned down the claimant’s appeal. The claimant had been unsuccessful in an action for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. He was equally unsuccessful on appeal….
ADVISING ON LITIGATION RISKS 1: YOU CAN BE BELIEVED AS A WITNESS AND STILL LOSE YOUR CASE
Earlier posts have looked at the concept of “litigation risks”. This is something we are all aware of as practising lawyers. We advise on those risks on a daily basis. However very little is written about this. This is the…
ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE
A recent decision by the Bar Standards Board held that a barrister had not acted with reasonable competence when he failed to inform his client in relation to the risks of bringing a private prosecution. This decision highlights the need…
TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY
In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting. The case provides…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TRIAL FEE: THIS IS ALWAYS A POINT TO WATCH
In April this year the rules were amended to introduce a concept of “automatic striking out”. Put simply if a claimant does not pay the court fee by the relevant date. I have seen occasions where this has had effect….
WHEN THE CLAIMANT WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO ACCEPT £300,000: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (THIS DOESN’T END WELL FOR SOMEONE)
Earlier this week there was a post on the case of Houghton (Stanley) -v- P.B. Donaghue (Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd & Ors) [2017] EWHC 1738 (Ch) in which a claimant was refused permission to accept an offer of £300,000 after…