Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC [2021] EWHC 2607 Mrs Justice Steyn DBE, siting with Master Brown, allowed an appeal to a decision of Master Nagalingam on the basis that the signatory on the bill certificate was not...
Raydens Ltd v Cole [2021] EWHC B14 (Costs) Background The claimant solicitors acted for the defendant in protracted matrimonial proceedings between November 2013 and September 2018. The defendant’s husband in the proceedings were ordered...
Appeal Process – Practice Note CPR 52 and practice direction 52A to 52E cover the appeal process in the civil division of the Court of Appeal, High Court, and County Court. The only exception is following a Detailed Assessment undertaken by...
Fundamental Dishonesty; Inconsistencies and Lack of Disclosure by the Claimant’s Solicitor is not Sufficient to Conclude that a Claimant is Fundamentally Dishonest
Reasonable and Proportionate Costs does not mean the lowest possible amount
ATE policy information not obtainable under Part 18 in Solicitors Act assessment (Wayne Raubenheimer v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd) Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant was refused its application to compel the defendant to answer a Part 18 request for...
£250k Fixed Fee Agreement Found to be Unreasonable & is Set Aside by Costs Judge Brown
Getting the basics right- “All of these errors could have been avoided with a little diligence”
In the matter of Thompson v NSL Limited [2021] EWHC 679 (QB) Master McCloud considered an application by the Claimant to revise parts of a budget originally approved by a District Judge in the County Court.
In the matter of Morrow v Shrewsbury RUFC, Mrs Justice Farbey considered whether it would be just for a Claimant who had exaggerated their claim to recover costs after succeeding at trial, and if not, what would be a reasonable and just deduction to those costs.
