Kain Knight are an ever growing force in the field of costs litigation
The 1 October 2015 will see the introduction of a new transitional provision and Precedent Q relating to all cost managed cases. The transitional provision requires a breakdown to be provided of the costs being claimed on a phase by phase basis. In addition to this, there will be a voluntary pilot scheme, in the Senior Court Costs Office, for the use of a new format Bill of Costs, which will apply to Costs Managed Cases only. For more information on J Codes call Kain Knight on 01279 755552 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
The 86th Practice Direction Update, which amends PD 51L- the New Bill of Costs Pilot Scheme, comes into force on 3rd October 2016 and sets 1st October 2017 as the provisional date on which the electronic bill devised by the Hutton Committee will become mandatory. Until then, the Pilot Scheme begun on 1 October 2015 in the SCCO, will continue but amended so that volunteers (they can be counted on one hand so far) who wish to use it, must now do so by completing Precedent AB rather than Precedent AA. The latter was the original Hutton Bill and applied where Notices of Commencement had been served after 30 September 2015. That date has been amended by paragraph 2.1(b) to 3 October 2016. New paragraphs 1.1A (a) and (b) provide that the Rule Committee will monitor the Pilot Scheme and aim to fix the mandatory form of the new bill at its meeting in May 2017 , “with a view to establishing a mandatory form of bill of costs to apply to all work done after 1 October 2017”....
The High Court has upheld the decision of an Arbitrator to allow the inter partes recovery of the costs of securing third party funding in an as yet unreported judgment. The Claimant in an ICC Arbitration, having succeeded in the arbitration, sought its costs from the Respondent. Forming part of it’s claim for costs the Claimant included the costs of the litigation funding which it had to incur in order to pursue the claim. The third party funding consisted of an advance of £647,086.49 (the “Advance”) which was repayable at the greater of 300% of the Advance, or 35% of the damages. The Respondent had disputed the Arbitral Tribunal’s power to make the award sought but lost. The Respondent obtained permission to appeal the Arbitrators decision in the High Court. On hearing the appeal, HHJ Waksman Q.C dismissed the appeal. He held that the third party funding costs were recoverable pursuant to section 59(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and Article 31(1) of the ICC Rules. Further analysis will be provided once the Judgment has been obtained....
View all news
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on LinkedIn