header-logo header-logo

Coventry: a costs calamity in waiting?

22 January 2015 / Kerry Underwood
Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

A phoney war or a £15bn headache for the government? Kerry Underwood counts down to the Coventry v Lawrence finale

The legal New Year feels like 1939, waiting for an inevitable war anticipating the Supreme Court hearing of Coventry v Lawrence, listed for 9, 10 and the morning of 12 February 2015, to be heard by Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, and Lord Carnwath. It may turn out to be a phoney war with the Supreme Court maintaining the status quo and upholding the right of the UK Parliament to govern the costs regime in the UK courts. Or it may not.

Background

The case is about whether the system of recoverability of additional liabilities, that is success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums, in place from April 2000 to April 2013, breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms part of our domestic law due to the Human Rights Act 1998.

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll