Despite a long history, costs offers remain full of intricacies writes Paul Jones ‘The court accepted, in line with previous authorities, that Part 36 is generally to be considered as a self-contained code for determining costs but this did not usurp the general provisions in CPR 44.2 to make a partial costs order where appropriate …
Continue reading "Costs: The saga of Part 36 continues"
This post is only available to members.
Sarah Jane Lenihan suggests circumstances when it may be appropriate to seek a costs order against a non-party ‘The court has discretion to order a non-party to pay costs, where it believes it is just to do so, and the non-party is connected with the litigation.’ Most family lawyers will have a client at one …
Continue reading "Costs: Taking responsibility"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones gives a warning on the importance of weighing the value of a claim against the possible costs ‘The difference in costs payable for a small claim and the costs payable for a normal claim are substantial and it is, therefore, often worth it for the parties to argue the point.’ Arguments regarding small …
Continue reading "Costs: The small claim that roared"
This post is only available to members.
Miranda Whiteley summarises recent guidance on costs from the Technology and Construction Court ‘Proportionality is not all about the relationship between the size of the claim and the claimant’s (or the total) costs bill.’ We have had to wait for nearly two years for some guidance from the courts on the new proportionality test for …
Continue reading "Costs: Less pain more gain"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones contemplates what the current costs trends mean for the future of London practices ‘There was no obligation on the claimant to instruct the cheapest available firm and… the court had a wide discretion to allow a reasonable hourly rate in all the circumstances of the case.’Hourly rates are one of perennial areas of …
Continue reading "Costs: Personal injury solicitors in London – a dying breed?"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2015 #147The deceased, Mr Seals, (D) committed suicide on 10 December 2013. He was depressed following his wife’s death from cancer in August 2010. However, the mental health team who saw him in September and November 2012 did not identify any major disordering mental illness. After his wife’s death D renewed a childhood friendship with the applicant Mrs Williams (B) and letters he wrote to her suggested a considerable degree of emotional dependence upon her. On 12 May 2011 he made a will using B’s solicitors and appointed her his executrix. He left her all his property and assets. At the same ti...
Paul Jones sets out a court’s cost options after a case that is only a partial success ‘The court concluded that the claimant was the successful party on liability but the defendant was the successful party in relation to quantum.’ A not uncommon issue in relation to costs in personal injury claims is what costs …
Continue reading "Costs: Winners and losers"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones examines an emerging area of dispute in the application of QOCS ‘The starting position for QOCS is that a costs order made in favour of successful defendant to a personal injury claim cannot be enforced against the claimant.’ One of the most significant reforms ushered in by the Jackson report was Qualified One …
Continue reading "Costs: Once a QOCS, always a QOCS"
This post is only available to members.
Rebecca Andrews-Walker and Clare Arthurs assess the impact of Coventry v Lawrence ‘Many parties have been asking for an adjournment of the detailed assessment of any additional liabilities claimed until the Supreme Court’s decision in Coventry is known.’ Just as the dust was beginning to settle from the changes to funding and recoverability of costs …
Continue reading "Costs: In the dock – success fees, ATE premiums and the Human Rights Act"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144Mr Rawlings (the deceased) and his wife Mrs Rawlings made mirror wills in 1999. Mrs Rawlings died in 2003 and her estate passed to her husband. However, upon the death of Mr Rawlings in 2006, it became apparent that the solicitor involved in the preparation of the wills had accidentally presented Mr and Mrs Rawlings with, and each had signed, the will intended for the other. The validity of the will was subsequently challenged by the deceased’s two sons, who were not entitled under the will but stood to inherit his £70,000 estate under the rules of intestacy. The Supreme Court held that ...
