COMMENTS : This case reaffirms the basic principle that winner should get his legal fees from the looser subject to appottionment for winners dishonest conduct. It also highlights again the importance of making sure that offers made during the life time of the case comply with Pt36 of CPR. Here they were not and N [...]
Read more
FORRESTER KETLEY & CO v DAVID BRENT (2012), In KETLEY the Court of Appeal held that a judge had been entitled to find that a defendant who had failed to comply with a mandatory order to vacate his property was in contempt of court, and to have imposed a suspended sentence. The defendant’s attempt to issue [...]
Read more
AMP v PERSONS UNKNOWN (2011) An individual was granted an anonymity order under CPR r.39.2(4) and an interim injunction to prevent transmission, storage and indexing of photographic images taken from her mobile phone and uploaded to a website as BitTorrent files. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to those images capable of [...]
Read moreAs a general rule (cf r44.3 CPR) it is accepted that where a party wins / succeeds in a claim pre-litigation or post-issue they are entitled to their reasonable and proportionate costs. However, it was reaffirmed in the recent case of Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd [2009] in the QBD by Richard [...]
Read more