Legal Costs

The new Costs Practice Direction has finally been released. Now we have both the new CPR rules and the new CPD I will start to analyse these in detail. Obviously, it’s perfectly possible that between now and 1 April 2013 half the rules will have been rewritten, but we might as well start somewhere. First […]

Kerry Underwood has produced another masterly costs update analysing Qualified One Way Costs Shifting. This highlights another of the bizarre aspects of the implementation of the Jackson Reforms and one that seems to have attracted very little attention. At the risk of oversimplification, in personal injury claims successful claimants will be able to recover costs

Lord Neuberger’s speech at the Association of Costs Lawyers’ Annual Conference 2012 finished with the warning: “the Jackson reforms represent the boldest attempt to cure our costs problem yet attempted. Should they fail to reduce costs, it seems to me that we will face a stark choice: the rejection of the English costs rule and

Costs budgeting is the new hot topic in costs law (although possibly gone rather off the boil with news that a growing number of claims will be exempt from automatic costs management) and so I share on the Costs Law Articles Archive section of Legal Costs Central my article discussing the logic of both proportionality

Relief from sanctions applications are currently governed by CPR 3.9: “(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order the court will consider all the circumstances including – (a) the interests of the administration of justice; (b) whether the application for

We now have the draft rules for the new Employers’ Liability and Public Liability Protocol and the amended RTA Protocol. A number of possible surprises in the small print but one issue that jumps out is that disease claims (other than mesothelioma and those involving more than one defendant) are treated as employers’ liability claims

I knew it was a mistake to start commenting on the new CPR rules at this stage. Following my post on the ambiguity as to which claims would be subject to the new proportionality test it now appears that a new statutory instrument will be published in March to introduce a new transitional provision within

I’ve just received a Notice of Hearing from the Senior Courts Costs Office for a three hour hearing before a costs officer. Listed for September. Seven months to get a three hour hearing. And we haven’t even started with the wave of satellite litigation post-Jackson.

We now have the post-Jackson amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules. We still don’t have the new Costs Practice Direction. I’m trying to resist the temptation of commenting on the Rules until we see the CPD. It may all become clear in due course. However, we definitely do have the new proportionality test: “44.3 (2)

The new CPR rules implementing large swathes of the Jackson costs reforms are apparently due to be released today. Because recoverability of additional liabilities is due to end, large parts of the CPR and Costs Practice Direction will become redundant. The relevant parts of the CPR and CPD are therefore due to be have a