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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll