In a recent decision which will be welcomed by defendants to funded group litigation, including financial institutions, the High Court has ordered security for costs against a commercial litigation funder in Rowe v Ingenious Media Holdings PLC [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch). The decision follows the court’s approach to security applications against litigation funders in the RBS Rights … Read more
A decision handed down by the Court of Appeal today has dismissed the suggestion that there is a fixed limit on a commercial litigation funder’s liability for the other side’s costs when a claim it has funded fails: Chapelgate Master Fund Opportunity Ltd v Money [2020] EWCA Civ 246. This is a significant decision and represents … Read more
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment holding that complainants who had accepted a Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) determination were barred from bringing court proceedings in relation to the same cause of action under the legal principle of res judicata. In doing so, the Court of Appeal overruled a High Court decision … Read more
The High Court has decided that a party who accepts a FOS determination awarding them the statutory maximum award (now £150,000) can subsequently claim for damages above that amount through the courts. The Court concluded the doctrine of merger does not apply to FOS decisions. This ruling is in direct conflict with a previous High … Read more
In ADS Aerospace Limited v EMS Global Tracking Limited [2012] EWHC 2904 (TCC), Mr Justice Akenhead sitting in the Technology and Construction Courtheld that a successful party was not unreasonable to refuse mediation and should not be penalised in costs on that basis. The judge’s approach was similar to the Court of Appeal in Swain Mason v Mills … Read more
A recent High Court judgment highlights the scope for confusion in applying Part 36 in a case where the formal roles of claimant and defendant do not reflect the reality of who is seeking a (greater) remedy in financial terms: The Procter & Gamble Company v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another[2012] EWHC 2839 (Ch). The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is … Read more
The government has given further details of its plans to introduce contingency fees, or “damages based agreements” (DBAs), for civil litigation. It has said that in non-personal injury claims (excluding employment tribunal cases) there will be a 50% cap on the amount of damages that can be taken as a contingency fee (see the new webpage launched … Read more
A recent High Court decision illustrates that a defendant’s offer to settle made outside the Part 36 regime may lead to a similar result as a Part 36 offer, although it will not carry automatic costs consequences: Brit Inns Limited (in liquidation) v BDW Trading Limited [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC). Claimants on the receiving end of such … Read more
A recent decision illustrates that the court may award indemnity costs to penalise unreasonable behaviour, including an unreasonable failure to accept a settlement offer: Walter Lilly & Company Limited v MacKay [2012] EWHC 1972 (TCC). That includes a Part 36 offer that has been withdrawn so that it does not carry the usual Part 36 costs consequences. … Read more
