Guideline hourly rates ('GHR') are so often misunderstood: paying parties frequently aver that they ought to be strictly adhered to, irrespective of the nature, value etc. of the litigation concerned and be it summary or detailed / provisional assessment, while receiving parties (and even respected academics) often argue that they have no relevance to anything but the summary…Read More
We are almost six months on since LASPO and the Jackson costs reforms came into effect and so more and more cases straddling the cut-off in respect of recovering additional liabilities between the parties are being settled, such that the costs of those claims are falling to be agreed/assessed. I've previously aired some thoughts on the proliferation of seemingly unnecessary, very late and enormously expensive…Read More
Many involved in personal injury litigation and legal costs do not appear to be familiar with or understand the words/expressions 'concludes at trial' and 'concludes before a trial has commenced' as set out in the former CPR 45 Sections III - V and relating to fixed success fees in road traffic accident, employers' liability and employers' liability disease claims.
Recently, for example and in the context of an employers' liability claim where the Claimant's bill…
I have a number of pet hates in 'costs', including:
Incorrect success fees - why oh why claim a success fee in excess of that prescribed by rule?
Incorrect ATE LEI premiums - why claim the full premium when it is as plain as a pikestaff (to all but the author of the bill) that the discount / rebate applies?
Lazy bill drafting - pray tell, for example, what is one to make of a bald nomenclature such as "Litigation…