New Search

If you are not happy with the results below please do another search

8 search results for:

1

Para 7.12 RTA Protocol | No Interim Payment Without A Stay

“If a claimant wishes to benefit from the provisions of paragraph 7.13 to 7.22 (and by doing so be paid an interim payment), he or she must obtain a stay under paragraph 7.12. This, to my mind, is the natural reading of the Protocol. It is also entirely understandable why the drafters of the Protocol would wish to restrict a claimant’s ability to seek interim payments under paragraphs 7.13 and 7.18 to certain defined circumstances (namely, those that are set out in paragraph 7.12)…. it must follow that the Claimant wrongly exited the Portal.”

2

Fixed Costs Under CPR 45 | Which Section Applies If The Claimant Dies?

Where a person gives notification of a claim under the Protocol but thereafter dies before its conclusion and the notified claim then settles on behalf his Estate pre-issue, are the costs and disbursements payable by the defendant to be calculated by reference to Section IIIA (or III) of CPR 45? Or are they to be calculated by reference to the generally more favourable Section II of CPR 45?

3

Court of Appeal: Fixed Costs Do Not Apply To Appeals But QOCS Does

The Court of Appeal determined the following costs issues following a successful second appeal:

(1) Do the rules governing fixed costs in CPR r.45.17 to 19 apply to the costs of the appeal?

(2) If not, does CPR r.52.19 apply?
(3) If CPR r.52.19 does apply, what order for costs should we make?

(4) Does the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting regime in CPR Part 44 apply to the costs of the appeal so as to limit the extent to which any order may be enforced against the respondent?

6

Fixed costs under Section III of CPR 45: is there any escape?

This was the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts to escape fixed costs as governed by Section IIIA of CPR 45 by reason of exceptional circumstances under CPR 45.29J. The claimant’s solicitors argued that it had been the claimant’s intention from the outset to pursue the claim outside the Portal. They had initially sent the defendant a letter of claim and only later added the claim to the Portal at the defendant’s insistence in order to progress matters, saying that “the Defendant refused to consider the matter unless a Portal submission was made”.