header-logo header-logo

If the cap fits

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll