header-logo header-logo

09 December 2016
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Qader and others v Esure Services Ltd; Khan and another v McGee [2016] EWCA Civ 1109, [2016] All ER (D) 156 (Nov)

The Court of Appeal in allowing the appeal in the first case and dismissing the appeal in the second case, held that s IIIA of CPR 45 should be read as if the fixed costs regime, which it prescribed for cases which started within the road traffic accidents (RTA) protocol, but then no longer continued under it, was automatically dis-applied in any case allocated to the multi-track, without the requirement for the claimant to have recourse to CPR 5.29J, by demonstrating exceptional circumstances. The court held that the fixed costs regime in s IIIA of CPR 45.29 applied to all cases started under the RTA protocol, but which no longer continued thereunder.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Is AI a help or a potential risk? What do lawyers need to consider regarding their use of AI? How do they evidence the extent and scope of its use in their work?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
back-to-top-scroll