Monthly Archives: March 2016

LITIGATORS, LITIGATION AND THE APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD 2: “IT’S NUTS”

I had no idea that the earlier post on a litigator’s case load would receive such a large response and have many hundreds of people reading it within hours (it was posted on a Sunday remember). Most of the response came on twitter.  One response was (somewhat wryly) that there was a mis-assumption that lawyers […]

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE COSTS (AND A LOT OF TROUBLE): COURT OF APPEAL CASE CONSIDERED

The Court of Appeal judgment today  in Patience -v- Tanner [2016] EWCA Civ 158 is a classic example of the difficulties that arise when a case is, in essence, all about the costs. It shows the danger of making, and then withdrawing an offer. Litigation went on for a long time after the offer was […]

NEW COURT FEES (INCREASED NEEDLESS TO SAY)

Court fees increased yesterday. There has been much public discussion of the family fees. Very little about the increase in fees for applications. LINKS TO THE RULES The statutory instrument is available here The facile “Impact Assessment” is available here. KEY CHANGES Amendments to the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 2. In the table in […]

IS THIS AN EXPERT REPORT I SEE BEFORE ME? I THINK NOT

In Al Nehayan -v- Kent [2016] EWHC 623 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies made observations upon “expert” evidence that had been placed before the court.  There were major failures of form as well as of substance.  The judgment contains an important reminder that expert reports must comply with the requirements of PD 35. “Within no […]

COSTS BUDGETING: PROPORTIONALITY; CITY FIRMS & COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS £16 MILLION AT STAKE

The judgment today of Mr Justice Morgan in Group Seven Limited -v- Nasir [2016] EWHC 629 (Ch) provides some interesting observations in relation to costs budgeting.  It demonstrates that issues of proportionality are important even in a case where £16 million was in issue. It also considers whether the use of City solicitors is justified […]

LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD AND IS IT IMPORTANT?

I have been planning to write on litigators’ workloads for a considerable time. It is an important issue and, as far as I can tell, very little is written about it.  The issue is a fundamental one. What is the appropriate number of cases for a litigator to be handling at any one time to […]

COSTS, FIXED COSTS AND COSTS BUDGETING WHEN MAKING AN INTERIM ORDER: ALL IN THE PINK

The decision of Mr Justice Birss in Thomas Pink Ltd -v-Victoria’s Secret UK Limited [2014] EWHC 3258 has only recently been posted on Bailii.  However it contains an interesting example of the court considering the issue of costs, fixed costs and costs budgeting when making an interim order as to costs. KEY POINTS When the […]

PROVING THINGS 13: LOSS, THERE WAS NO LOSS

The case of Bacciottini -v- Gotelee and Goldsmith [2016] EWCA Civ 170 is one that may  have you scratching your head.  The claimants claimed, at one stage, over £300,000 in damages. The judge awarded £250.00.  It is a potent lesson in the need to assess the value of a claim and the impact of a […]

PROVING THINGS 12: THAT “ORAL CONTRACT” IS IT WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON?

The issue of when, where and how a contract is formed is always of interest to academic lawyers. However,  for the most part, the court has to determine issues of fact.   The judgment of Mr Justice Knowles in JAS Financial Products LLP -v- ICAP [2016] EWHC 591 (Comm) provides an example of the analysis […]

MOVING FROM PUBLIC FUNDING TO CFA: NOT A REASONABLE STEP IN THIS CASE

NB see the appeals related to these issues discussed here This blog has already reviewed several of the cases where the courts have considered the reasonableness of moving from public funding to a conditional fee agreement.  The issue is significant because the reasonableness of the decision determines, to a large extent, whether the defendant is […]