Monthly Archives: May 2015

Part 36 penalties in detailed costs assessments.

 By Justin Crossley Cashman v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1312 (QB)   This matter was an appeal from a senior cost Judge refusing to award an additional amount under CPR  36.14(3) (d) on a detailed assessment of costs.  The law with which this judgement is concerned is CPR 36 as it […]

Credit Hire Simplified?

 By John Collins In cases where the hirer of a car on credit terms is not impecunious, we thought we knew where we stood after Dimond v Lovell [2001] 1AC 384. The Claimant was entitled to recover the ‘spot rate’ or, as the Court of Appeal in Pattni v First Leicester Buses Ltd [2012] RTR […]

Defence – Some personal reflections

 By John Collins There is a striking difference between CPR part 16.4, which deals with the Particulars of Claim and 16.5, which deals with the defence.  Whereas there is a clear instruction that the Particulars of Claim has to include only a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant replies, there is no […]

The Future Of Costs Budgeting

 By Colin Richmond I previously blogged about attending a meeting with Jackson LJ last month as part of his review of the costs management/budgeting process. In that post, I promised that I would report further once Jackson LJ’s recommendations were made public, which he did as part of a lecture at the end of last […]


  By Andrew Wilson  Anecdotal evidence suggests that Defendants in failed personal injury claims are increasingly making use of the Court’s wasted costs powers in an attempt to recover costs from Claimants’ legal representatives. Often this is in cases where the Defence is either explicitly or implicitly one of fraud. In such cases the terms of […]

COSTS ORDERS, DISCONTINUANCE AND CPR r.38.6(1): Barker and Barker v Barnett (2015) (QBD)

  COSTS ORDERS, DISCONTINUANCE AND CPR r.38.6(1): Barker and Barker v Barnett (2015) (QBD) The court can depart from the usual rule in CPR r.38.6(1) that a Claimant who has discontinued their claim is liable for the costs which a Defendant has incurred and, alternatively, order that the Defendant pay a part of the Claimant’s […]

Priestley v Dunbar and Co

  Denton and Delay: to what extent should delay impact upon an application to set aside judgment?   Priestley v Dunbar and Co [2015] EWHC 987 (Ch) 30th April 2015   Summarised by Nicola Phillipson   In granting the Defendant’s appeal against a refusal to set aside judgment, the issue of promptitude was considered.   […]