Whatever your view on fixed costs for clinical negligence cases, it certainly continues to spark debate. Concerns include that it will hinder access to justice for the most vulnerable and that the system needs overhaul before a pricing structure is fixed, there is certainly much to consider. As always, the
Friday afternoon has rolled around again in no time. Despite my well founded intention to tweet every day and write regular articles, this has not yet come to fruition, but I am working on it…. The frenzy surrounding costs budgets seems to have died down for now and I haven’t
I am often asked questions about the fixed costs regimes. As a costs draftsman, I rarely have the need to be involved in fixed costs, for obvious reasons. I thought it may therefore be beneficial to clients to post information on decisions of significance. You may find the decision in
ABC v (1) ST George’s Healthcare NHS Trust (2) SW London & ST George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (3) Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 336 Imposing on clinicians a duty of care to disclose a diagnosis of Huntington’s disease to a patient’s daughter was just and reasonable, given
Well, we have been quite on the blog side for the last month, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t been busy. Quite the opposite!! Despite the fact that the introduction of the new electronic bill has been delayed until next year, we have been busy working on our own version,
Many hold mixed views on this subject. It is right, of course, that those lives who have been affected by medical negligence are taken care of as best as possible, including monetry damages to help them live to the fullest within any limitations that such negligence may have led to.
Before continuing with the days work, I have been pondering the destruction spreading through the legal profession amid the application of fixed and budgeted costs. As my colleague departs the office to do some DIY – painting at home, I thought more about how the legal profession are being stifled
(1) PHILIP FREEBORN (2) CHRISTINA GOLDIE v DANIEL ROBERT DE ALMEIDA MARCAL (T/A DAN MARCAL ARCHITECTS) EWHC 3046 (TCC)QBD (TCC) 28/11/2017 Where a costs budget was filed 7 days before a CMC further to a court letter, rather than 21 days before in accordance with the CPR, there was no need
Part 36, Indemnity Costs, Inflation of Costs, Assignment of CFA (1) DOREEN MCKEOWN (2) DANIEL MCKEOWN v TANZA TOTTLE VENTON, CC (Liverpool)12/06/2017 Defendant’s late acceptance of Claimant’s Part 36 offer in low value personal injury claim which had exited portal did not give rise to entitlement to indemnity costs. Costs
WRIGHT v FIRSTGROUP PLC, QBD (Foskett J) 12/01/2018 Another case where a Claimant was granted permission to use a new expert in circumstances where their expert had changed his view following a joint meeting and to not allow a new expert would have resulted in an unfair disadvantage to the Claimant.
BRUMA v HASSAN & ANOR, QBD (Judge Curran QC) 16/01/2018 The defendants in this catastrophic RTA had done little to try to settle in circumstances where they had rejected a Part 36 offer. Indemnity costs were awarded, with 4% above base being the appropriate rate of interest under CPR r.36.17(4)(c).
BRUMA v HASSAN & ANOR, QBD (Judge Curran QC) 16/01/2018 The defendants in this catastrophic RTA had done little to try to settle in circumstances where they had rejected a Part 36 offer. Indemnity costs were awarded, with 4% above base being the appropriate rate of interest under CPR r.36.17(4)(c).