header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009 / Chris Lethem
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

If the cap fits

Chris Lethem looks at the effect of new cost capping rules

In Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199, [2007] All ER (D) 205 (Mar) the court declined to give guidance to practitioners as to the parameters and the practice of costs capping, preferring to refer the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Committee. That committee has accepted the challenge and now produced rules to govern costs capping (See r 9 et seq Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2008—applicable from 6 April 2009), introducing a new CPR 44.18–20).

Costs capping orders will only apply to “future costs”. By r 44.18(2) future costs are defined as costs incurred in respect of work done after the date of the costs capping order but excluding the amount of any additional liability. Two important elements come out of this definition. First there can be no attempt to reduce costs already incurred, in other words the order cannot be retrospective. Thus the new rule mirrors cases such

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll