Skip to main content

Insights & News

Search for Insights & News

  • Budget discussion report deemed an abuse of the cost budgeting process

    09 June 2017

    A Defendant’s budget discussion report (Precedent R) was disregarded by the court due to the “lack of reality” of the offered costs.

  • Time to add more defendants?

    21 April 2017

    In a recent decision the Court of Appeal has had to decide whether a claim for accessory liability against various companies was time barred. Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 22.

  • Marathon Asset misses the jackpot again

    12 April 2017

    After being awarded only £2 in nominal damages in its breach of confidence case, Marathon Asset has been heavily penalised on costs after failing to accept the defendants’ Part 36 offer.

  • Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim

    14 February 2017

    A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.

  • Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?

    08 February 2017

    Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.

  • Indemnity costs intended to have chilling effect

    07 February 2017

    Court orders indemnity costs in recognition of the fact that litigation became “out of control” due to factors that were attributable to the conduct of the Claimants and their legal representatives and experts in the lead up to trial.

  • Does a solicitor own the goodwill associated with their own name?

    01 February 2017

    In (1) Juthika Bhayani and (2) Bhayani Law Limited v Taylor Bracewell LLP this question was considered by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

Back To Top