The Arkin cap has come to be seen as increasingly unfashionable, and a forthcoming hearing may provide some indication of the prospects of it being consigned to the back of the wardrobe of history. As a reminder, where a claim backed by litigation funding fails, the funder may be susceptible to a non-party costs order in favour of the successful party.

Part of our response to the Ministry of Justice review of part 2 of LASPO focuses on the need to preserve the partial recovery of after-the-event insurance premiums for clinical negligence claims. It seeks to counter the view from certain quarters that perceives this insurance as somehow being less relevant now. As claimant lawyers and their clients well know, the reality is that it definitely is not the case.

As the winds of change continue to blow across the personal injury legal market generating uncertainty and challenge, choosing the right legal expense insurance provider can provide some welcome stability and security for law firms, insurers and their customers. But how do you select the right insurer? Yes, price is always going to be a consideration, but I’d argue it definitely shouldn’t be the driving factor.

New technology is rapidly changing the world around us, permanently revolutionising our everyday lives. It is also changing the legal landscape, with law practitioners required to keep abreast of every new development to best help their clients. From helmet and dash cameras to improved CCTV, this is particularly evident in personal injury law.

The recent case of Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 represents a very interesting development in the interpretation of rule 44.14. The question before the Court of Appeal was this: where, in a matter to which QOCS applies, a claimant has brought an action against multiple defendants, is a successful defendant entitled to enforce a costs award in its favour against damages recovered by the claimant from an unsuccessful defendant?