header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009 / Chris Lethem
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

If the cap fits

Chris Lethem looks at the effect of new cost capping rules

In Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199, [2007] All ER (D) 205 (Mar) the court declined to give guidance to practitioners as to the parameters and the practice of costs capping, preferring to refer the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Committee. That committee has accepted the challenge and now produced rules to govern costs capping (See r 9 et seq Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2008—applicable from 6 April 2009), introducing a new CPR 44.18–20).

Costs capping orders will only apply to “future costs”. By r 44.18(2) future costs are defined as costs incurred in respect of work done after the date of the costs capping order but excluding the amount of any additional liability. Two important elements come out of this definition. First there can be no attempt to reduce costs already incurred, in other words the order cannot be retrospective. Thus the new rule mirrors cases such as Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2503 (QB), [2006] All

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll