header-logo header-logo

21 June 2007 / Dr Mr Friston , Prof A Mcgee , P Hughes , M Smith
Issue: 7278 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs Law Brief

WHO BEARS THE COSTS OF THE COSTS WAR?

In Myatt and others v National Coal Board [2007] EWCA Civ 307, [2007] ALL ER (D) 301 (Mar) the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of who should pay the costs of an appeal concerning the enforceability of the claimants’ conditional fee agreements (CFAs). The claimants had lost that appeal (see Myatt and others v National Coal Board [2006] EWCA Civ 1017) and the issue was who should pay the defendants’ costs: should the costs be paid by the claimants themselves, or by their solicitors?

The claimants had no insurance in respect of the appeal because their after the event (ATE) insurance was itself conditional upon their conditional fee agreements being enforceable. Had this not been the case, the defendant would have been content with an order against the claimants themselves, but in view of the fact that the claimants were uninsured, the defendant had no option but

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll