There was some discussion (on social media and elsewhere) about the transitional provision in the SI which did not have a corresponding provision for the Practice Direction dealing with the new Precedent H. Page 17 of the PD Making document (click here) now shows a transitional provision which says, “The amendments made to PD3 apply…
Read more…Costs Budget Served Late: Relief from Sanctions Allowed On Appeal The case: Murray -v- BAE Systems Plc Liverpool CC 1/4/2016 HHJ Gregory. Circumstances: The claimant served its costs budget 2 days late and filed it at court 6 days late; at the same time as making an application for relief from sanctions. The DJ refused…
Read more…So what will happen to the assumptions after 6/4/2016? Coulson J wrote, ‘It is for the court to fix an appropriate budget; it is not for the court to say whether particular assumptions are reasonable or otherwise.’ So parties are now being encouraged to agree figures not assumptions for the budget. Brevity is the word.…
Read more…After 6/4/2016 – New guidance notes on Precedent H Obligatory? Looks that way. Save in exceptional circumstances do not lodge any documents other than Precedent H. The table (in the Guidance Notes) lists the phases of the litigation and the work included in the phases, insofar as the work relates to the circumstances of your…
Read more…Whilst there is no official judgment, I understand that in the case of Martin v The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (Leeds County Court) the Claimant’s relief from sanctions application was dismissed. The circumstances: Bill claimed at £14,000.00 was assessed in the sum of £4,159.10. Request for Oral hearing was required by 23 December 2015.…
Read more…In the case of Littlestone -v- Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127 a payment made by the Defendants did not affect the value of the Part 36 offer made. The crux of the case is as follows:- Landlord/Tenant case. Tenants made a Part 36 offer of £35,000.00. Liability was admitted in the Defence by the Tenants…
Read more…Earlier in the week, we reported how Attain can assist obtaining payments on account of costs for receiving parties. Our involvement tends to be after the authority for costs has been determined. However, we would encourage practitioners to think about payments on account as early as possible. Here are some key points to bear in mind:- If…
Read more…In the case of ABC v Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 500 (QB) (11 March 2016), the Court was asked to consider whether the usual costs order under Part 36.13(5) would apply or whether it would be unjust to do so. This was a clinical negligence case. The claim was in excess of £1…
Read more…Here at Attain we routinely push for voluntary payments on account of costs for our receiving party clients. If we are not able to secure one voluntarily and an assessment hearing has not been requested, we will take steps to issue an application for an order for a payment on account under CPR 44.2(8) which…
Read more…Yesterday, my colleague Nicola blogged about the case of C&S Associates UK Ltd v Enterprise Insurance Company Plc [2016] EWHC 67 (Comm) (22 January 2016) , As Nicola highlighted, the Claimant was ordered to pay 100% of the costs of the expert reports and 80% of the costs of preparing the bundles irrespective of the…
Read more…