Post-Jackson ‘traps’ for the unwary
The Jackson reforms have been with us for nearly six months now. While the abolition of recovering success fees and premiums was met with cheer, the procedural changes and the approach of the courts to enforcing the new rules — particularly when seeking relief from sanctions — have been met with some trepidation by the profession. Mills & Reeve has set out below how the courts have been applying their new powers.
Elvanite v AMEC: the defendants served a cost estimate immediately before trial that doubled their previously approved budget. They won at trial, but lost their application to amend the budget because it had been made too late and should have been made as soon as the budget was exceeded.
Baker v Hallam Estates Ltd: the court allowed an appeal against an order extending time for serving points of dispute in detailed assessment proceedings, where the application for an extension of time was issued after the 21-day time limit had expired…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
Mills & Reeve has released the December edition of its Health Legal Update.
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why