Simpsons (Preston) Ltd & Anor v MS Amlin Underwriting Ltd [2023] EWHC 1370 (Comm) and the variation of costs budgets when the issue is self-imposed
Between them our team have a wealth of experience. Call us on 0845 160 9595.
Simpsons (Preston) Ltd & Anor v MS Amlin Underwriting Ltd [2023] EWHC 1370 (Comm) and the variation of costs budgets when the issue is self-imposed
IEH v Powell [2023] EWHC 1037 and the late acceptance of a Part 36 offer when the Claimant is a child suffering with brain damage.
The dangers of unjustified allegations within a Letter of Claim
In the matter of Brierley v Outo & Ors, Costs Judge Nagalingam gave consideration to the paying parties’ application that the receiving party’s Bill of Costs should be redrawn as one of the fee earners named did not have the necessary years of experience.
The differences between a summary assessment on the standard basis and a solicitor/client assessment on the indemnity basis
The matter of Simon v Simon & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1048 concerns a Court of Appeal decision regarding the function of a litigation loan provider in divorce proceedings.
The matter of Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB) concerned a claim for assault, battery and misfeasance in public office. The Defendant’s officers had tasered the Claimant, causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head.
With the FRC changes, a further track has been created, known as the intermediate track. Claims valued between £25,000 - £100,000 will now usually be allocated to the Intermediate Track, provided that their complexity makes them unsuitable for the Fast Track. In the event the claim is particularly complex, the Court are able to allocate the claim to the Multi-Track, which means the FRC regime will not apply.
In Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation LLP [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO) Costs, Master Leonard found that the bills raised to the client were interim, not statutory bills and so all could be open to assessment.
This is a court of appeal decision, dismissing the appeal of a firm of solicitors who had been instructed under an unenforceable CFA.
The appellants were a firm of Solicitors, Volterra Fietta, who the respondents engaged to advise in relation to an investment treaty arbitration claim.