Should a claimant be entitled to default judgement on a claim that was dependent upon the outcome of separate proceedings?
Should a claimant be entitled to default judgement on a claim that was dependent upon the outcome of separate proceedings?
Was the Claimant entitled to costs on an indemnity basis following a Part 36 offer to accept “95% of our client's claim for damages” even though this was an outcome that was not open to the court at trial?
How will the courts approach costs where the parties “fight bitterly over every possible inch of ground”?
How do the courts decide when to allow or prevent a party from using expert evidence?
How should a court approach challenges to a costs budget which was said to be unreasonable?
Links
[1] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/2017/06
[2] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/legal_briefing_aug_2017.pdf
[3] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/2016/02
[4] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/legal_briefing_02_-_2016.pdf
[5] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/2015/17
[6] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/legal_briefing_17_-_2015.pdf
[7] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/2015/13
[8] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/legal_briefing_13_-_2015.pdf
[9] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/2015/12
[10] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/legal_briefing_12_-_2015.pdf
[11] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/print/research-insight/newsletters/legal-briefing/adr-arbitration-litigation?page=4