ATE/CFA


Solicitor fails in bid to recover costs after terminating CFA

The High Court has upheld a decision that a solicitor was not entitled to recover costs of £12,600 he said were owing after he terminated a conditional fee agreement.

Read More

Contingent and third-party funding on the up at Rosenblatt

City firm Rosenblatt is ramping up its use of contingent funding agreements, while its litigation finance arm has now invested in nine cases, the listed business’s half-year results have shown.

Read More

Defendant’s “potential exposure” not relevant to security for costs

A defendant’s potential exposure to paying the premium for after-the-event insurance necessary to meet its demand for security for costs was “not relevant” to the question of security.

Read More

Costs judge strikes down CFAs worth millions

A costs judge has struck down three conditional fee agreements in a big-money commercial case for having the potential to lead to a claim for a success fee exceeding 100%.

Read More

Judge refuses payment out of court for all of defendants’ legal fees

The High Court has rejected an application for a payment out of court to fund all of the defendants’ legal fees under a conditional fee agreement in a “gargantuan” tax fraud case.

Read More

Court rejects JR over LASPO post-implementation review

The High Court has rejected a judicial review that argued the Ministry of Justice failed to carry out an adequate review of the impact of the LASPO reforms on those with asbestos-related diseases.

Read More

Solicitors fail to recover £1.1m after losing CFA switching case

Claimant solicitors acted unreasonably in switching a client from legal aid to a pre-LASPO CFA-lite, the Court of Appeal has ruled, meaning they cannot recover £1.1m in additional liabilities.

Read More

Insolvency claims on the rise but costs remain high

The impact of the Jackson reforms on the funding of insolvency litigation – though significant – has not been as serious as some had predicted but costs remain high, new research has found.

Read More

← Older posts Page 1 of 12

Blog

23 November 2020

Technicalities and realities – the battle over clin neg ATE premiums

A paying party in a clinical negligence case is seeking to argue that a Tomlin order is not a relevant “order for costs” and therefore the ATE premium is not payable. This should be given short shrift.

Read More