header-logo header-logo

19 February 2009
Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Harrison v Harrison [2009] All ER (D) 61 (Feb)

Legal Profession

Wasted costs orders (under s 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981) are remedies of last resort. The legal representative  should not be called on to reply unless an apparently strong prima facie case has been made against him. Where the responding lawyer is required to show cause why an order should not be made, the burden of proof does not shift away from the applicant, who must establish his case. Even where the court is satisfied as to conduct and causation, it has to consider whether to exercise the discretion to make the order and to what extent. Orders should only be made under s 51(6) where, and to the extent that, the conduct so characterised has been established as directly causative of wasted costs. Applications for wasted costs are usually best left until after the end of the trial.

Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll