LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Unless Orders are judicial directives that can force a non-compliant party to comply with a previous court order. Specifically, in the context of outstanding costs orders, Unless Orders can help ensure financial obligations are paid out.
Deputy Costs Judge Joseph in the case of Coram v D R Dunthorn & Son Ltd [2023] EWHC 731 (SCCO) affirmed that the costs of instructing leading counsel for a three-day trial were not recoverable as they were deemed unreasonable and disproportionate for a case with a maximum value of £115,000 (settled for £75,000).
An award of indemnity costs might give a party in a lawsuit a major advantage, due to the fact that the paying party will be responsible for the legal expenses and the proportionality criterion will not be applied. Since costs on the standard basis are the norm, the indemnity costs principle (included in Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(3)) can be considered punitive in nature.
Making a strategic Part 36 offer is a powerful tool in UK litigation. It provides a pressure for the other side to settle the dispute early, potentially saving both sides significant time and costs. By carefully calculating the offer and timing it correctly, you can increase the likelihood of a favourable settlement. If the offer is rejected and you ultimately win a better judgment, Part 36 offers significant financial advantages, including increased costs recovery, interest, and potentially a percentage of damages. Ultimately, a well-crafted Part 36 offer can strengthen your negotiating position and improve your overall chances of success in UK litigation.
If you have been charged a very high fee by a solicitor you are able to challenge the fairness and reasonableness utilising the Solicitors Act 1974. However delay in taking action could reduce or eliminate prospects of recovery. If the sum involved is high value, we and counsel could (after a paid review) act on a no win no fee basis where we are only paid if we succeed.
The Respondent to an application to set aside a statutory demand must bear the costs of the application, even if they withdrew the demand shortly after the application was filed.
Following lifting of government lockdowns during the pandemic, enforcement action including bailiffs attending properties can now resume. There may also be changes to debt recovery legislation which protective measures were brought in during the pandemic to prevent aggressive debt recovery action from debtors affected by coronavirus. If you have received a county court judgment against you or your company, get in touch with our litigation team as soon as possible.
The High Court has refused permission for two property developers to amend their initial agreed cost budget of approximately £1.5 million after an attempt to request almost double the sums allowed.
This latest High Court case again demonstrates the pitfalls for litigants who unreasonably refuse to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution such as mediation to resolve issues. Parties that fail to do so risk be punished by the court when it comes to costs.
In a multi million pound breach of contract case, where there was no substantive defence to the claim and the Defendant accepted summary judgment and liability for the Claimant’s costs, the High Court held that a Claimant’s Part 36 offer to accept only 0.3% less than the full sum being claimed was a “genuine offer to settle” under CPR 36.17(5)(e).