Tag Results

QOCS and multiple defendants – why both sides need to be wary

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?

August 16th, 2018 | No Comments »

John M Hayes launches e-magazine in conjunction with new seminars on litigating with costs in mind

Issue 1 of COSTS will be available from 30th August 2018. COSTS was conceived with the intention of supporting litigators by consolidating significant developments in the law on both inter partes and publicly funded costs into a single, complimentary and readily accessible e-Magazine

August 15th, 2018 | Comments Off on John M Hayes launches e-magazine in conjunction with new seminars on litigating with costs in mind

Rewarding talent: four big promotions at John M Hayes

John M Hayes has promoted four of their internal team to senior roles within the company.

June 12th, 2018 | Comments Off on Rewarding talent: four big promotions at John M Hayes

A Missed Opportunity for Assignment of CFAs?

The Supreme Court has allowed the recovery of a pre-LASPO success fee and after-the-event (ATE) premium where the conditional fee agreement (CFA) and insurance had to be extended after 1 April 2013 to cover appeals. A copy of the Judgement on Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2017] UKSC 23, can be found here. It is a significant ruling on LASPO’s transitional provisions although it seems that both parties had accepted that the CFA could be validly assigned from the outset and it was just the validity of that assignment that formed the subject of the technical challenge.

May 8th, 2017 | Comments Off on A Missed Opportunity for Assignment of CFAs?