Latest news
Services
People
News and Events
Other
Blogs

Latest News

Motor Insurers' Bureau v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB) (19 February 2026) and whether a breakdown is required for litigation services provided by a company

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Synopsis When considering whether a breakdown of an invoice for legal services may be required, the Court found that a breakdown is only necessary when assessing whether the fee is reasonable and proportionate, or where abuse is suspected. The argument...

In Smith v Wigan Borough Council [2026] EWHC 660 (SCCO) Costs Judge Nagalingam ordered a local authority to pay the reasonable costs of a tenant who accepted a Part 36 offer in a housing disrepair claim.

Megan Roxburgh
  • Posted
  • Author

    Background The Claimant brought a claim for housing disrepair as the tenant of the local authority Defendant. The Defendant made three Part 36 offers during the underlying proceedings, all of which made specific references that...

Failure to Confirm Compliance with the Indemnity Principle will not Render Service to be Invalid

Claire Kretzmann
  • Posted
  • Author

Lord Justice Philips recently considered an appeal relating to service of the Bill of Costs and whether an omission to certify that the bill complied with the indemnity principle would render the service to be defective. It was found that this error alone...

Smith & others v Campbell & others [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) and the costs following the removal of trustees who acted properly.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Synopsis Following the successful application to remove two trustees, the Court refused to award the successful side their costs of the proceedings and maintained that the removed trustees would remain entitled to indemnity from the trust fund for their...

Petrofac Ltd (Costs), Re [2025] EWCA Civ 1106 (14 August 2025) and considerations when determining an appropriate payment on account.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Background The underlying matter related to an appeal against an order that sanctioned restructuring plans  under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. The dispute related to the plan companies of the Petrofac group and two dissenting creditors, Saipem...

Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB [2024] EWCOP 57 and the Deputy's authority to manage a Personal Health Budget.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB [2024] EWCOP 57 and the Deputy’s authority to manage a Personal Health Budget. The matter of Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB concerned an application to discharge the Deputy, as the Deputy considered...

XX & Anor v Young & Anor [2025] EWHC 2443 (SCCO) (24 September 2025) and conduct arguments at a detailed assessment hearing.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Summary This matter related to an appeal by the Second Defendant, who alleged that the Costs judge had failed to take account of the allegation of fundamental dishonesty when considering proportionality, specifically conduct under CPR 44.11. The Court...

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust & Anor [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) and the pitfalls of alleging Fundamental Dishonesty

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Summary This matter related to claim made for clinical negligence. Quantum had been agreed at £1 million, but liability was disputed. The Defendants made it clear that they would be alleging Fundamental Dishonesty against the Claimant but failed to...

Lemos & Ors v Church Bay Trust Company & Ors [2025] EWHC 3061 (SCCO) and the effect of costs management orders.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Background The underlying claim related to a claim made under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. S423 grants the Court power to grant relief in respect of transactions where assets are put out of the reach of creditors. The transaction in this claim related...

Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3274 and the interaction of Part 36 offers and matters that settle via consent.

Daniel Packham
  • Posted
  • Author

Synopsis When considering the application of Part 36 the Court considered a Consent Order to be tantamount to Judgement as far as the wording of CPR 36.17, allowing the party who made such an offer to enjoy Part 36 benefits when concluding via Consent...

  • Page 1 of 5