LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
In Manolete Partners PLC v White, the Court of Appeal ruled that a pro bono costs order under Section 194 LSA 2007 for £85,000 payable to the Access to Justice Foundation (AJF) was unconditional and could not be set off against the pro bono party’s outstanding judgment debt, reinforcing the distinct legislative purposes of the provision.
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.
In the case of Richards & Anor v Speechly Bircham LLP & Anor (Consequential Maters) [2002] EWCH 1512 (Comm) HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a judge of the…
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.
A recent case of Beattie Passive Norse Ltd Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd highlights the importance of causation and repercussions of providing an inaccurate value of a claim.
In Pallett v MGN Ltd, a case concerning the newspaper phone hacking scandal, the High Court orders the Defendant, owner of the Mirror newspaper, to pay all of the Claimant’s costs of the proceedings, despite arguments that they had accepted the settlement offer outside of the 21 day relevant period under CPR Part 36.
In Shaista Zuberi v Lexlaw Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 16, the Court of Appeal has refused the appellant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This is a welcome and important judgment for lawyers and clients equally as it provides some much needed judicial clarity on the effect of termination in respect of DBAs in litigation matters
In Iwuanyawu v Ratcliffes Solicitors, the SCCO granted an application for detailed assessment of fourteen invoices delivered by her former family solicitors, many of which were out of the twelve month time period for assessment on the basis that they did not contain sufficient information to enable the Claimant to know what she was being charged for.