News

In response to the defendant's arguments advocating budgeting Master Davison stated in Smith v W Ford & Sons (Contractors) Ltd [2021] 1749 (QB) that there is no evidence that the detailed assessment process is not adequately controlling costs in asbestos cases. He went on to say that if asbestos cases (where budgeting is usually disapplied) were compared to other industrial disease cases that were budgeted, he would be surprised if there was much or any difference.

The High Court has upheld a County Court decision to award the claimants their costs (estimated at £200,000) following a trial in which they were awarded damages of £10.

In Raubenheimer v Slater & Gordon UK Limited the claimant made a request for disclosure of any payments made to Slater & Gordon. No details were not provided and so the claimant made a Part 18 request under the Solicitors Act seeking a breakdown of a £254 ATE premium together with details of direct payments made to Slater & Gordon. In support, the claimant produced correspondence between the ATE provider, Elite and the claimant's costs representative, which appeared to show payments made by Elite to Slater & Gordon and which were not disclosed to the client. Slater & Gordon served a statement only confirming that an ATE premium had been paid in accordance with its cash account.

Liverpool firm SGI has successfully appealed the decision of DJ Bellamy to limit the costs it charged its client to those it recovered from third party insurers. Overturning the original decision in SGI Legal v Karatysz, Mr Justice Bellamy ruled that the limitation decision of the lower court was wrong.

Artificial intelligence will largely replace jobs in the legal profession according to projections set out in a report published by the Law Society.

The High Court has overturned the decision of Master Gordon-Saker to set aside a Default Costs Certificate (DCC) on the basis that a Notice of Commencement served by email did not constitute proper service.