Partnerships need to think beyond ATE and look at what the joint needs are. The key to longer-term success is active dialogue to help anticipate future needs and avoid any unnecessary surprises
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Limited and Evening Standard Limited, dismissing the newspapers’ appeals.
With far more now at stake under the section IIIA regime than there ever was under section II, claims for costs exceeding fixed recoverable costs are now starting to reach the higher courts.
The erosion of rights tends to occur incrementally, none more so than important rights. On 3 October 2016, the rule committee abolished the right to a permission-to-appeal hearing in the Court of Appeal.
The life of a claimant personal injury lawyer seems to be as miserable as that of our prime minister; everywhere they turn there’s someone ready to make life ever more difficult.
The Supreme Court in its recent ruling in Stocker v Stocker found the High Court and Court of Appeal failed to understand how ordinary people communicate on social media.
Such a complex multi-industry issue as fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence – weighing up the high costs of litigation against the NHS, versus vital access to justice – is not an easy one to move forward.
Last month’s Supreme Court decision in Takhar considered the fundamental issue of the circumstances in which will the court permit itself to be an instrument of fraud.
A recent judgment of Deputy Master Friston deals with an application made on behalf of the defendants for the partial or total disallowance of the claimant’s costs pursuant to CPR rule 44.11(1)(b).
The world today can be described as volatile and uncertain at the best of times. Given the recent dealings around Brexit, it’s no surprise that we’ve grown resilient to these conditions.