COST BITES 283: “A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE POINTS OF DISPUTE WERE DISMISSED”: NOT ENOUGH DETAIL, FAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STANDARD AND INDEMNITY BASIS COSTS
We are looking at a different aspect of the case we have already looked at this morning. However the paying party in that case to some extent where the authors of their own misfortune. In particular the judge held that…
COST BITES 282: PROPORTIONALITY OF COSTS CONSIDERED AFTER A LINE BY LINE ASSESSMENT: TAKE YOUR SEATS FOR A CASE ABOUT THE ALBERT HALL…
I am grateful to my colleague Paul Hughes for bringing my attention to this decision of the SCCO in relation to proportionality. It is a case where the paying party specifically raised proportionality as a further and specific issue after…
COST BITES 244: WHEN ARE INDEMNITY COSTS APPROPRIATE? SHOULD THE FEES OF JUNIOR COUNSEL BE RECOVERED IN FULL? A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT CONSIDERED
I periodically remind people (and remind myself) that one of the purposes of this series is to look at what is happening “on the ground” in relation to costs, including the summary assessment of costs. Practitioners may only have limited…
COST BITES 92: THE TRANSIT OF VENUS, THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TIME SPENT AT CASE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS IS RECOVERABLE INTER PARTES
I am grateful to Andrew Davis KC for bringing my attention to the judgment of Master McCloud in Hadley v Przybylo (Costs, Costs budgeting, Costs lawyers, personal injury, case manager, recoverability) [2023] EWHC 1392 (KB). The Master rejected the argument…
COST BITES 91: CONVERSION OF CURRENCY WHEN A RECEIVING PARTY HAS PAID ITS LAWYERS IN EUROS
We have looked before at the case helpfully sent by Nicholas Lee Paragon of Costs Solutions , in Micula and others v Romania [2023] UKSC 2018/0177 (23 May 2023). Here we look at that part of the judgment that deals…
You must be logged in to post a comment.