|
|
|||
| Home | News | Staff Profiles | Contact us |
Summaries"Below are very brief summaries of cases we have been instructed in. Details have been simplified considerably."Click the headings to read more |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A significant claim for costs arose out of a dispute between two solicitors both of whom were represented by their respective firms thus presenting complicating features pursuant to London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester (1884) 12 QBD 452 and Malkinson v Trim [2002] EWCA Civ 1273 with further arguments arising due to the recoverability of VAT.
The client was the Defendant in proceedings brought against her for personal injury. It was a term of the sale of a car to the Defendant that insurance be supplied. However, this insurance was not put on cover and the car sales company refused to indemnify the Defendant. The company was included as a Third party in the original action, and then as Part 20 Defendant. The original action was disposed of by way of a Consent Order, and then the Part 20 Defendant claimed that the action was moribund. The matter concluded just before a final Hearing with the Part 20 Defendant agreeing to pay the MIB all costs owed by the Part 20 Claimant. All costs were awarded to the Part 20 Claimant, costs relating to the applications by the Part 20 Defendant were assessed and paid and therefore not included in the final Bill.
Clients sought protection from former directors who intended to utilise confidential information to form the basis for a new company and undercut pricing structures. The matter was litigated to trial where an undertaking was awarded with damages and costs. Responsible for drafting a number of the bills of costs that were combined in the Accident Group Test Cases.
Claim to the Lands Tribunal following a Compulsory Purchase Order The Claimant had purchased a large area of brown field land for development. The Claimant began to decontaminate the area and a grant was obtained from the European Regional Development Fund. The local County Council then issued a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) against the Claimant. The Claimant appealed the CPO, and although successful on some points, the CPO was upheld. There was no Order for costs in the CPO proceedings. The Acquiring Authority then offered the Claimant a paltry sum for the land, as the decontamination was not complete. Negotiations ensued and Surveyors were instructed to prepare reports. Finally, by a Consent Order in the Lands Tribunal, the Acquiring Authority was ordered to pay £1.8m in satisfaction of the claim. Costs, which included a claim by the Claimant for disruption to his business, amounted to nearly half a million pounds.
Application for the winding up of a Partnership by business and matrimonial partner The client was the Defendant in an application by her partner for a declaration that the partnership was dissolved, and for an Order that the Defendant sell her interest in the former partnership. The partners had run a Pub together and the Claimant maintained he had terminated the partnership, although the Defendant continued to reside there. Legal Aid was granted to both the Defendant and the Claimant. An injunction was Ordered against the Defendant to prevent her from interfering in the business. A further Application was made by the Claimant, and it was Ordered that the Defendant vacate the premises, conditional on the Claimant paying her the sum of £5,000.00 to help her find alternative accommodation. A meeting was attended between all parties, after which the Claimant alleged the Defendant had monies outstanding, as the Defendant had not signed a continuing election. Following application the Particulars of Claim were amended accordingly. The Defendant asserted that legal implications of signing a continuing election had not been explained to her and that her accountant had advised her not to sign it until the Claimant had supplied documents and these had not been forthcoming. The matter settled by way of consent in the sum of £10,675.00, with the Claimant to pay 60% of the Defendant's costs after the discharge of his Legal Aid Certificate.
Client was the Claimant to be represented in an application for leave to appeal for a Judicial Review of a decision by the Defendant to discharge him after his renewal date. The Claimant was detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act in April 2001. The panel of Managers did not meet until three weeks after the renewal date, when they concluded that the Claimant should be discharged. The Defendants' recommended that the Claimant stay with them voluntarily, which he did. He had full access to treatment, with greater freedom than he had under section. The Claimant sought a Judicial Review on the grounds that the Defendants' delay was unreasonable and the process was unlawful in that required information was not passed on to the Claimant and the process set in the statute was not compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. The Claimant also claimed damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. Legal Aid was applied for and the matter was referred to the Public Interest Advisory Panel, who decided that the case had significant wider public interest. The Department of Health was included in proceedings as the Interested Party. Permission was refused, despite a Renewal Application and an Appeal with the assistance of Leading Counsel. It was noted that the law was being changed so that this could not re-occur, making the case unique. Bill to Legal Services Commission was drawn, including 100% enhancement due to complexity, unique nature of case and specialist area of law involved.
Compensation for Wrongful Arrest The clients were political refugees, who were Claimants in proceedings brought against the Police for false imprisonment and assault. The Claimants were involved in a domestic argument, and the police were called. They arrested the First Claimant, and a fight broke out, in which both Claimants were injured. The First Claimant was convicted of assault, but this was later successfully appealed. After the issue of proceedings, considerable exchange of evidence and negotiations, the matter was settled for the total sum of £21,500.00 plus costs, without admission of liability. The Claimants both had Legal Aid certificates, which were issued on separate dates, and the matter was passed from one firm to another.
Appeal against Tree Preservation Order The Client was the Claimant in proceedings to appeal a Tree Preservation Order, so that he could build on the affected land. Despite no objections being made at the time of the site inspection, the workmen were ordered to stop clearing the site by the local authority. A survey was obtained from a Planning Consultant, who stated that there were no trees worth preserving. Shortly before the Hearing, the TPO was revoked, and the Defendant claimed that there was therefore no case to answer. After some discussion as to terms, it was Ordered by Consent that the Appeal be withdrawn, with the Defendant to pay costs.
Serious PI with numerous medical experts The Client was the Claimant in personal injury proceedings following a very serious road traffic accident. Following an unfortunate sequence of events involving several vehicles, a car transporter crossed the central reservation of a dual carriageway, and collided with the Claimant's car. The Claimant suffered extensive injuries, including severe facial lacerations and fractures around her right eye socket, damage to internal organs, minor brain damage and lacerations to her arms and legs. She underwent emergency surgery, and considerable follow-up treatment, including reconstructive facial surgery. She also suffered from chronic PTSD and required considerable daily care and assistance. Liability was not an issue, but quantum required reports from medical experts from a dozen different disciplines, plus reports from a care expert and a forensic accountant. At a final Hearing, the Claimant was awarded £285,000, with the Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Site design Blazeweb Design © Carlisle Legal Costing 2005 - 2008 |
|||
