Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2013 #127Stanley Shirt, the claimant (C), owned the freehold of the family farm (Syda) and an agricultural tenancy (Rufford), which he lost in 2007 as a result of failure to pay the rent. He had three sons and a daughter. In 1974 C entered into a farming partnership with his wife, Marie (M), who died in 2004, and his son, Alan (A). Both farms were recorded as partnership assets. In 2006 C fell out with A and thereafter they carried on two separate businesses. A lived in a house on Rufford until the tenancy came to an end, when he moved into a caravan on Syda. C brought a claim for possession agai...
Paul Jones investigates the latest challenge to the provisions There was no power within the CPR 36 for the court to enter judgment following an agreement between the parties as suggested by the claimant. If one considers the entirety of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), it would be difficult to counter the argument that CPR …
Continue reading "Costs: The continuing saga of Part 36"
This post is only available to members.
John Plunkett advises that failure to have an effective retainer in place could be fatal It became apparent to the defendant’s solicitors that the claimant’s solicitors had allocated and claimed work carried out by a Grade D fee-earner, at an hourly rate of a Grade B fee-earner. I refer to the currently unreported costs case …
Continue reading "Costs: Breach the indemnity principle at your peril!"
This post is only available to members.
Robert Platt and Leah Alpren-Waterman discuss damages-based agreements Including counsel’s fees in the cap on the proportion of damages that can be sought as a contingency fee would be consistent with the government’s approach in limiting the total proportion of damages that can be recovered as a fee by the lawyer.In April 2013, the Legal …
Continue reading "Costs: A contingency fee by any other name"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2012 #124The deceased, Owen Davies (D), was born in England but died in France. He was living in Belgium at the time but owned a house in England and had made a will in England some 12 years before his death under which the fifth defendant, his uncle Clive Davies (Clive), was interested in residue. He was not on good terms with his mother and siblings represented by the first to third defendants (the family defendants (FD)) when he made his will and they contested probate proceedings claiming that D had died domiciled in Belgium and that the will was null and void under Belgium law, pleaded that ...
Edward Rowntree gives an update on Morris v Davies A will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conformed to the internal law in force in the territory where it was executed or in the territory where, at the time of its execution or of the testator’s death, he was domiciled. or had …
Continue reading "Costs: The final say on domicile and costs"
This post is only available to members.
Robert Connelly considers the long and winding road to Jackson For small firms, the decision to waive or reduce the capped success fee will be an important commercial decision as high volume practices will be better placed to make such concessions and still compete in the PI market place. As April 2013 looms ever nearer, …
Continue reading "Costs: Jackson reforms"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones looks at the latest case concerning Part 36 offers The defendant’s case was that there was no reason to depart from the normal rule and, in particular, to apply the normal rule would not be unjust in all the circumstances. Of all the provision of the Civil Procedure Rules, CPR 36 has generated …
Continue reading "Costs: Reversing the normal rule in CPR 36"
This post is only available to members.
Mark Surguy looks at the costs consequences of not quite winning The trial judge decided that that the notion of ‘success’ depended on who was paying money to whom at the end of the case. He did not think that the claimant had exaggerated his case and felt he had reasonably relied on expert evidence. …
Continue reading "Costs: It’s not winning but taking part that counts"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2012 #121Briggs J gave judgment in relation to costs occasioned by Mrs Barbara Lilleyman’s successful claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband, reported as Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] WTLR 1007.
There had been extensive without prejudice negotiations and offers (both Part 36 offers and without prejudice offers) had been made by both sides. On 27 July 2011, the defendants had made two simultaneous offers: a Part 36 offer (the July Part 36 offer) and a without prejudice offer (the July without prejudice offer). The defendants made a further without ...
