Costs

As he takes the reins at the Association of Costs Lawyers, new chair David Bailey-Vella reflects on imposter syndrome, breaking down barriers & surprisingly unrelaxing hobbies

A recent case illustrates the financial risks facing litigants in person (LiPs) who fail to comply with the correct procedure on costs. Julian Caddick, council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers and a partner and head of costs at Thompsons Solicitors, explains the case in this week’s NLJ, and offers key takeaways for practitioners who find themselves opposite a LiP.

A conditional fee agreement (CFA) can have retrospective effect even though this is not spelled out, the Court of Appeal has held

Horses for courses, a lid for every pot and costs lawyers for costs (regulated, of course). Otherwise, it could all turn into a shambles. In this week’s NLJ, Jack Ridgway, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers and a senior associate costs lawyer at Bolt Burdon Kemp, highlights the perils of using an unregulated costs draftsman.

Would you ask a bricklayer to install a boiler, asks Jack Ridgway? If not, you should probably get a regulated costs lawyer to manage your costs

The deadline for submissions to the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) consultation on litigation funding, including third party funding, has been extended by one month

Legislation allowing costs lawyers to become judges will be laid this year, the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) has predicted.

The family courts are increasingly ready to impose costs orders as a result of poor behaviour or misleading evidence, say Stowe Family Law senior associates Siobhan Vegh and Natalie Nero, and solicitor Rebecca Sutton. Writing in this week’s NLJ, Vegh, Nero and Sutton talk us through a recent example, the divorce and financial remedies case, NW v BH.

Family practitioners should be aware of the courts’ increasing readiness to impose costs orders as a result of poor behaviour or misleading evidence: Siobhan Vegh, Natalie Nero & Rebecca Sutton highlight a recent example

Lawyers have welcomed the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that success fees are not covered by ‘financial need’ provisions in wills disputes