header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Indemnity costs & unreasonable conduct

25 November 2022
Issue: 8004 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
101295
How high a hurdle must be cleared before a court will grant indemnity costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct? Writing in this week’s NLJ, Masood Ahmed, University of Leicester and Lal Akhter, Med Chambers, Leicester, tackle this important question.

Ahmed & Akhter look at the judicial approach to indemnity costs, briefly introducing a variety of caselaw examples while highlighting that each case will be determined on its own facts. What level of unreasonable conduct takes place, what efforts are made to negotiate, and what evidence is put forward?

They cover, in detail, a recent case (Evans v R&V) where ‘the decision provides an important reminder of the test that must be satisfied before a court will grant indemnity costs’.

See here for the full article.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll