Tag Archives: Conduct

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 […]

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE PORTAL? INSURERS CONTACTING CLAIMANTS DIRECTLY: STILL

I post (with his permission) a letter from Kerry Kirkbride.  It relates to the regular issue of insurers ignoring claimant solicitors and writing to claimants directly after notification on the Portal. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PORTAL? “I am a claimant Personal Injury Lawyer and a Director of Active Legal. I am writing to […]

“NEAR MISS” RULE NO LONGER APPLICABLE: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION ON COSTS

In Sugar Hut Group Limited -v- AJ Insurance Services [2016] EWCA Civ 46 the Court of Appeal overturned an award of costs made against a successful party. “The Claimants’ recovery exceeded the Part 36 offer by a comfortable margin and in any event there is no longer a “near-miss” rule. There is no basis upon […]

WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS, ABSENT STATEMENTS AND LATE BUNDLES

In F-v-M [2015] EWHC 3259 (Fam) Mr Justice Cobb made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors. The judgment is (and was designed to be) an object lesson in the need to comply with court directions and court orders. “Whether difficulties in complying with court orders arise out of funding difficulties or otherwise, […]

COSTS WHERE A CLAIMANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER LATE: TWO CASES WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CAME TO GRIEF

When a claimant accepts a Part 36 offer late costs become at large.  Here we look at two cases where late acceptance of a Part 36 offer had grave consequences for a claimant.* “A claimant who pursues a claim in excess, he says, of half a million pounds but settles for £40,000 attracts suspicion. When […]

PROPORTIONALITY AND SURVIVAL FOR LITIGATORS 4: CLAIM ONLY WHAT YOU CAN PROVE

Proportionality is, mostly, about money.  The problems that proportionality causes increase  in those cases  where the sums recovered are much less than those originally sought.    The over-claiming of damages is a dangerous tactic for many reasons. Not least it puts into question any decisions made at the costs budgeting stage in relation to proportionality. […]

ANOTHER CASE WHERE THERE WAS AN INVALID PART 36 OFFER; NO RESPONSE TO OFFERS TO MEDIATE AND NEITHER PARTY RECOVERED COSTS

There is a brief report on Lawtel of the Court of Appeal decision in NJ Rickard Ltd -v- Holloway (CA 03/11/2015)*. It is an example of: (i)the importance of making a valid Part 36 offer; (ii)an example of the consequences of taking many bad points; (iii) The profound danger of ignoring a request to mediate. […]

YOU’RE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER: NO-ONE IS GETTING ANY COSTS: POWERFUL WORDS IN THE HIGH COURT

In GBM Minerals Engineering Consultants Limited -v- GM Minerals Holdings Limited [2015] EWHC 3091 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser had some some strong words to say about conduct and costs, resulting in a decision that no order for costs should be made. “This could be said to be the very antithesis of cost-effective and efficient litigation. […]

LIQUIDATORS CLAIMED £1.1 MILLION IN COSTS: NO ORDER FOR COSTS MADE: NO ROBIN HOOD ORDER HERE

I am grateful to Anton Smith of Ashton Bond Gigg Solicitors for sending me details of the decision of Mr Registrar Jones  In Brooks & Willetts (liquidators or Robin Hood Centre Plc) -v- Armstrong 2015 EWHC 2289 (Ch) a copy of which is attached to the blog Approved Judgment Robin Hood 6.10.15 (2) “If an […]

RESPONDENT TO APPLICATION TO AMEND PLEADINGS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE CONSENTED

I am grateful to Tobias Haynes from Regulatory Legal solicitors for sending me details of a judgment given today in relation to the costs of amendment. This is based on Tobias’ note of the judgment which was given today (30th September 2015). Stephen Mark Brecons & others -v- Powerscourt Services Ltd & others. A decision […]