header-logo header-logo

30 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Halborg v EMW Law LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 793, [2017] All ER (D) 147 (Jun)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a limited liability partnership of solicitors, which acted as its own legal representative in litigation, was not a litigant in person and was not confined to the level of costs allowed to litigants in person.

The claimant limited liability partnership of solicitors fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(a) because it was a corporation which was to be treated as having acted with a legal representative and it fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(b), which applied only to individuals.

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The government has pledged to ‘move fast’ to protect children from harm caused by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, and could impose limits on social media as early as the summer
All eyes will be on the Court of Appeal (or its YouTube livestream) next week as it sits to consider the controversial Mazur judgment
An NHS Foundation Trust breached a consultant’s contract by delegating an investigation into his knowledge of nurse Lucy Letby’s case
Draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning pupils provides ‘more clarity’, but headteachers may still need legal advice, an education lawyer has said
Litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which funded behemoth opt-out action Merricks v Mastercard, can bring a judicial review, the High Court ruled last week
back-to-top-scroll