Increase guideline hourly rates by 35% pending CJC review, judge says

The guideline hourly rates should be increased to take account of inflation while they are being reviewed, meaning an increase of 35%, the High Court ruled this week.

Read More

CA: Judge was wrong not to order all of part 36 enhanced awards

Making one of the four enhanced awards of beating a part 36 offer does not “in any way” undermine or lessen entitlement to the others, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Read More

“Where are the savings?” – PI lawyers attack insurers

Claimant lawyers have attacked motor insurers for failing to pass on to consumers £367m in savings they have seen because of the impact of Covid-19 in reducing injury claims.

Read More

Court of Appeal refuses permission to appeal Swift v Carpenter

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal Swift v Carpenter, its recent decision on accommodation claims, and awarded the claimant her costs.

Read More

Costs specialists target ADR and precedent automation

Specialist costs lawyers in the South-West have joined forces with barristers to launch an ADR service aimed at costs, while another costs lawyer has launched an automated budget drafting service.

Read More

“Informed consent” ruling threatens avalanche of PI costs refund claims

Personal injury law firms that fail to spell out in their retainers the costs clients could be liable for beyond what is recovered from defendants face a wave of litigation following a major High Court ruling.

Read More

Gordon-Saker: Lack of evidence threatens guideline rates review

The Senior Costs Judge has warned lawyers that the guideline hourly rates may not change unless they start providing the group reviewing them with more evidence.

Read More

Commercial Court judge: costs are “always a worry”

A Commercial Court judge has said that the question of costs “worries me always” and should worry judges in all jurisdictions, particularly where there is a disparity of economic power between the parties.

Read More

← Older posts Page 1 of 58


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