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?

    Thursday, 16 August 2018
  • 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

    Wednesday, 15 August 2018
  • 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.

    Tuesday, 12 June 2018
  • Avoiding the trap of fixed costs in high-value claims

    Have you been caught out by fixed costs on a high-value RTA or EL/PL claim that settled prior to allocation to the multi-track? Over the past couple of months, we have seen this issue arise on a number of occasions. So, in what circumstances do fixed recoverable costs (FRC) under part IIIA of CPR 45 apply to high-value claims? They apply if a claim was submitted through the portal but no longer continues under the relevant protocol and the matter is not allocated to the multi-track. This is the scenario we are finding to be quite common in practice and something which practitioners should become familiar with in order to avoid the pitfalls of fixed costs.

    Friday, 23 February 2018
  • Running for shelter: Fixed costs and legal aid

    At a time when fixed costs reforms are moving with the same disregard and intent as a North Korean missile (and, it would appear, with the potential to do as much damage to the world of legal costs as we know it), solicitors in small and even, perhaps, medium-sized outfits must ask themselves this question: “Is there a safe place to hide?” Where, to continue the metaphor, is the shelter of refuge? For some, the sad reality is that there simply isn’t one. Those who are unable (or unwilling, as the case may be) to fundamentally consider and reconsider the way their practice operates will no longer be able to practise as profitably – or even profitably per se.

    Tuesday, 21 November 2017
  • Incurred costs: A fixed or moveable feast?

    How should you treat costs incurred between the date of an initial costs budget and the date on which an updated costs budget has been prepared? Do they fall as incurred costs for the purpose of the updated budget or remain as future costs? If such costs were retrospectively reclassified as incurred costs for the purposes of the updated budget, it would be possible to exceed the budgeted figures under the original budget with impunity, knowing that by filing an updated budget, such costs would become reclassified as incurred.

    Tuesday, 7 November 2017
  • Is travel sickness a British disease?

    Amongst the topics of recent news stories in The Le@der, an English newspaper for expatriates in Spain, were Spanish virgins descending on Valencia, complaints from ageing expatriates of ever-increasing waiting times for surgery, and a letter written by the British Ambassador to Spain about fraudulent sickness claims. Simon Manley had written to key stakeholders in the Spanish tourism industry, informing them of the steps the British government was taking to tackle fraudulent claims, recognising the impact they were having on hoteliers in Spain and on the UK package holiday industry.

    Thursday, 24 August 2017
  • 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.

    Monday, 8 May 2017
  • Getting to grips with proportionality and additional liabilities

    Before the Jackson reforms, the relationship between proportionality and additional liabilities was clearly defined. One of the key reforms was the introduction of a new proportionality test. Unfortunately, the new rules are silent as to the application of this test to additional liabilities. Unfortunately, the judges at the Senior Courts Costs Office are in disagreement as to the interplay between the new proportionality test and additional liabilities.

    Wednesday, 22 February 2017
  • The John M Hayes Partnership Ltd

    John M Hayes exists to increase profitability for Solicitor Firms, Corporate Bodies, Law Centres, Local Authorities, Police Authorities, Family Fee Earners and Charities be that by maximising legal costs recovery or reducing unnecessary pay outs for Defendants. We provide specialist… Read More

    Wednesday, 17 July 2013