Cost and Litigation Funding Seminar
We are looking forward to hosting our 4th annual costs and litigation funding seminar on 13 October. We have some great speakers including specialist Costs Counsel Roger Mallalieu and Kevin Latham. Topics that will be covered include proportionality, the assignment of CFA’s and payments on accounts.
We hope to see you there! For more information on the seminar, click here.
To reserve your place or if you have any questions regarding the event please contact Laura Courbet on 0113 336 3348 or via email at email@example.com
Any questions? Please contact Andrew at firstname.lastname@example.org or call on 0113 336 3334.
The double application of the proportionality test
After some stagnation regarding the application of the new proportionality test, which was implemented back in April 2013, the new proportionality test is now being applied, as can be seen in the recent plethora of case law. The courts are now starting to use the suite of tools that are available to them to manage costs and ensure that costs are controlled. So, this begs the question ‘who needs fixed costs?’. When costs management is applied properly, together with the more robust proportionality test, the court now has a powerful tool in the quest to control costs.
However, beware if the claim has been budgeted, there is the danger that the proportionality test could be applied twice. The proportionality test is applied to the budget, therefore submissions should be made regarding a second application of the proportionality test at the end of the claim.
Any questions? Please contact Sue at email@example.com or call on 0113 336 3389.
Settlement in RTA and EL/PL cases where fixed costs apply
[News story image] Practitioners in RTA or EL/PL cases take note: where a claim which would ordinarily be subject to fixed costs settles by Part 36, the Defendant may not have a right to challenge the level of costs claimed, and there will be no detailed assessment. CPR 36.20 provides that the only relevant factor is the stage at which the claim settles and, importantly, no right to assessment of costs arises where CPR 36.20 applies.
Defendants wishing to challenge the level of costs sought, for example where there is a dispute as to whether the claim correctly exited the portal, should not settle by way of CPR 36 but should offer to settle by consent, with a provision that costs be assessed if not agreed. This question is currently subject to determination in proceedings, and further updates will follow as the position develops.
Any questions? Please contact Matthew at firstname.lastname@example.org or call on 0113 222 3248.
Disclaimer: Anything posted on this blog is for general information only and is not intended to provide legal advice on any general or specific matter. Please refer to our terms and conditions for further information. Please contact the author of the blog if you would like to discuss the issues raised.