header-logo header-logo

19 February 2009
Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Harrison v Harrison [2009] All ER (D) 61 (Feb)

Legal Profession

Wasted costs orders (under s 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981) are remedies of last resort. The legal representative  should not be called on to reply unless an apparently strong prima facie case has been made against him. Where the responding lawyer is required to show cause why an order should not be made, the burden of proof does not shift away from the applicant, who must establish his case. Even where the court is satisfied as to conduct and causation, it has to consider whether to exercise the discretion to make the order and to what extent. Orders should only be made under s 51(6) where, and to the extent that, the conduct so characterised has been established as directly causative of wasted costs. Applications for wasted costs are usually best left until after the end of the trial.

Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll