View our latest update on recent judgments and legal updates affecting all aspects of litigation:

 

 

ATEMatters June 2022

What better way to enjoy the current sunshine than to grab a cold drink and take a break with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month our cup overfloweth with a refreshing mix of key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and legal costs funding including:

  • The Court’s powers when it comes to relief from sanctions
  • A really useful review of case law regarding ATE insurance and Deeds of Indemnity as a means to satisfy security for costs applications
  • Whether it is champertous for a law firm to indemnify a client’s adverse costs
  • The impact derived from the late acceptance of a Part 36 offer

And last but certainly not least:

  • Proposed CPR changes to QOCS

 

ATEMatters May 2022

The latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group, brings you our view on the latest key legal judgments and decisions we think anyone involved with litigation and costs funding should be taking note of.

This month we highlight cases involving:

  • An example of the ‘Denton’ test in practice regarding notice of funding and success fees
  • The appropriateness of issue based costs following a preliminary trial
  • Seeking a contribution to a professional negligence settlement from a third party
  • The burden of proof when it comes to mitigating loss
  • The production of documents referred to in a witness statement

As always, if you have any comments on ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and case funding, please do get in touch as we are only too happy to assist if possible.

 

ATEMatters April 2022

Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  The doctrine of Champerty takes the headline act this month following the judgment on assignment of a case from client to solicitor firm.  The long running saga of Bott & Co. v Ryanair now appears to have come to conclusion and this is a Supreme Court decision and a case history well worth a read.  Colley v MIB is another case of interest which considers the latter’s obligations following the ab initio void of a car insurance policy for misrepresentation.  Next up a case we have been keeping a close eye on and one with, once again, a Part 36 offer under the spotlight.  Finally in this edition we look into the muddy pool of Fundamental Dishonesty and its application in relation to a litigant in person.

 

ATEMatters March 2022

March is upon us already and it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month we bring you Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation starting with a look at the impact on limitation of amending a breach of contract claim.  The ubiquitous Part 36 judgment is next under the spotlight with this one focusing on court disclosure.  What is the impact of an upfront, non-contingent payment on the 100% CFA success fee limit was the question asked in the case of The Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation and the penultimate judgment this month considers the impact of costs incurred, ‘unusual in amount’, on the client’s liability for excess costs.  Last but not least, we bring you the appeal decision on a case first dealt with in the Sept 21 edition of ATEMatters regarding a dental practice’s vicarious liability.

 

 

ATEMatters February 2022

February is upon us already and so it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters.  In our first offering this month, we look at a case, brought by a solicitor firm against a former client, on the basis they failed in their duty of good faith resulting in a breach of contract.  We can never get away from the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and this edition we have two for your perusal.  In O’Grady v B15 Group, the Doctrine of Mistake is in the spotlight whilst London Trocadero v Picturehouse Cinemas considers a ‘genuine offer to settle’.  One for your injury colleagues next with a look at the outcome of three conjoined appeals dealing with secondary victim.  Finally this month we highlight a key outcome of a costs assessment where the claimant’s solicitors hourly rate was brought into question due to their reliance on external assistance in the running of the claim.

 

 

ATEMatters January 2022

It’s a brand new year and already time for the first edition of ATE Matters.  We start 2022 with some key decisions affecting the world of litigation and our first offering is worthy of note, being centred on the Norwich Pharmacal principle and the impact on requests for disclosure of information.  Kent v Apple Inc. is an absolute must read!  Here we have a crucial decision regarding the disclosure of ATE insurance premiums and whether, by doing so, the defendant would receive an ‘unfair tactical advantage’ by revealing the insurer’s assessment of the risk.  The following three updates in this edition you may wish to share with any of your colleagues involved with injury litigation.  CPR20 and 19 come under the spotlight next followed by another case decision looking at ATE premiums alongside overall deductions for costs from client damages.  We finish off this month with the liability outcome on a case we first brought you this time last year: Toombes v Mitchell.

 

 

ATEMatters November 2021

With the nights drawing in and the weather on the turn, everyone needs something to look forward to.  Luckily, LPG have come to the rescue with the latest edition of ATE Matters! A real mixed bag this month starting with some guidance on Practice Direction 57AC.  Our offering on Part 36 is well worth a read especially given the resulting 30% decrease in costs awarded.  Litigation privilege comes under the spotlight in Scipharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to determine the disclosure of solicitor attendance notes.  The last two this month will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved with injury work.  Fundamental dishonesty has always been a ‘grey’ area ever since the introduction of the LASPO act and our next update highlights just how muddy the waters can be.  Finally, an interesting case dealing with an accident abroad and the ability to serve out of jurisdiction.

 

 

ATEMatters October 2021

Halloween is nearly upon us, and the world of litigation and funding can be just as unnerving sometimes.  Luckily, the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to help you chase away the spectre of confusion with our update on the most recent and important legal judgments and decisions.  So, grab a pumpkin latte (or any suitable beverage of choice) and settle back to take a brief time-out with ATEMatters.

We start this month with an update to a case we looked at in the previous edition of ATEMatters relating to expert evidence.  Well worth a read now as the Court of Appeal has overturned that decision.  Quiet for a few editions but Part 36 has jumped out at us this month with two new judgements to take note of.  A case centred of the use of a CFA Lite is next up and a really important one given the issue of champerty being in question.  Finally, that old Devil QOCS raises its head and a must read for any of you or your colleagues dealing with relevant cases given the impact on defendant costs.

 

ATEMatters September 2021

The summer is nearly over, the kids are back at school, but as we watch with horror as the shop shelves start to fill with Halloween and Christmas stuff, at least there is the latest edition of ATE Matters to help you take your mind off it all for a few minutes.

This month we start with a key case considering the issues of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty, in this instance, relating to a dental practice over negligence by Associate Dentists.  Our next judgement, which could equally apply to a clinical negligence matter, deals with the outcome of an alleged instance of “Expert Shopping”.  Two commercial case decisions next up with one focusing on third party costs orders and the second relating to economic duress.  Finally in this edition we look at PD 57AC, in particular its impact on opinion evidence in witness statements.

 

ATEMatters August 2021

Not much sunshine in August so far however the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is sure to brighten your day.  Once again, we look at five of the recent key decisions/judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding starting with an interesting case centred on the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitor undertakings.  Discretion regarding Part 36 costs consequences and a case involving champerty are next in line.  We take a look at the judgment on the liability faced by other partners following fraud and finish this edition with a case, which will be of interest to your Clinical Negligence colleagues, centred on the discretion applicable to the issue of limitation.

As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments or if we can be of any assistance regarding your ATE insurance and/or funding arrangement.

 

ATEMatters July 2021

If ever there was an excuse to escape your desk (wherever it may be) and enjoy a few minutes in the sun, then the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is it.  This month’s newsletter gives you the perfect opportunity for a ‘bite-size’ update on the most recent and key judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.

We start with a look at two consecutive decisions from the Supreme Court which have set out the approach taken when considering the scope of duty of care relating to Clinical and Professional Negligence claims.  Some very useful guidance next on revising a costs budget on the basis of a ‘significant development’.  Two Part 36 updates this month and two very interesting circumstances relating to split trials and nominal offers to settle.  Finally, the question of solicitor own costs recovery, over and above the success fee cap, has raised its head once more and the decision in the case of SGI Legal v Karatysz [2021] is well worth a read.

As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk and so please let us know if you have any comments on ATEMatters.

Until next month, stay safe and feel free to get in touch if you require any assistance with ATE insurance or funding.

 

June 2021

After a damp and dreary May, it’s wonderful to see a June ‘heatwave’.  No doubt many will take the opportunity to work from the garden but, if like me, you need to escape in doors to avoid too much sun, why not grab a refreshing drink and sit back with the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.

 We start this month with an interesting judgment centred on the claimant’s liability following alleged fundamental deliberate breach of a contract.  Next up, the first COVID judgment I have personally come across and one relating to the effect of regulations on rental payments.  If you or any of your colleagues undertake CFA work, Bell v Brabners [2021] EWHC 560 (QB) is a key decision in favour of the acting solicitor firm regarding their ability and rights to terminate a CFA.  We finish off this edition with a look at CPR 47.20(3) and its bearing on costs reduction at detailed assessment followed by a decision giving us the answer to the question “When does the limitation period commence?”.

 

May 2021

This year is racing by and once more, LPG is delighted to bring you the latest ATEMatters with the freshest topics affecting the world of litigation.  We start this edition with a look at the ‘dark art’ of varying costs budgets and a failed attempt by the claimant.  As alluded to in a previous edition of ATEMatters, judgments regarding DBAs are growing exponentially as their use in litigation increases and thus, we conclude this month with a look at a case where once again the wording of the retainer comes under the spotlight.  We have two decisions relating to Part 36 offers to highlight however, sandwiched between is a fascinating case involving ‘fundamental dishonesty’ which I’m sure any of your injury litigation colleagues will find most interesting.

 

April 2021

As we tiptoe towards the new ‘normal’, one constant in the world of litigation is the availability of fresh legal decisions and case judgments.  As always, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters with our take on six of the latest key updates which are well worth a read.

I’m sure DBAs are going to grow in demand and as such we will see an increase in issues develop in respect of their use.  This month we bring you two recent decisions of note relating to their use as a client retainer and in conjunction with third-party funding.  The following updates will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  We highlight the application of the long-standing ‘Bolam’ test to disprove breach and causation in a negligence claim and look at the use of Part 36 as an “offer on the basis of accepted liability”.  Finally in this edition we would like to remind you of changes to CPR 36 and Practice Directive 47 which both came into effect on 6th April.

 Our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester for his invaluable assistance with ATE Matters and, as always, do get in touch if you have any comments or would like advice on any aspect of ATE insurance or third-party funding.

 

March 2021

Another month has flown by and already it is time for the March edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Once more, we bring you the very latest in legal updates and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding. 

Highlights this month are the judgment relating to litigation funding and Security for Costs as well as the Court of Appeal overturning a High Court decision to make no order for costs.      

So read on for the details on these and the other key topics in this edition of ATEMatters.

 

February 2021

We are half way through February already so it is high time we brought you the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group!

First off this month, the Law Society CFA comes under the spotlight, in particular the clauses relating to a solicitor’s right to basic charges on termination.  DBAs are a hot topic at the moment and the Court of Appeal decision in Zuberi v Lexlaw [2021] further enhances their validity and use.  Two key decisions regarding Part 36 are up next, the first of which we provided the ATE insurance for: The case of Pallett v MGN is probably one of the most significant decisions regarding the use of Part 36 for many years so a must to read up on; The second, if the claimant had had their way, would have given rise to a very bizarre situation.  Finally this month, we take a look at a very interesting judgment on a clinical negligence case where primary limitation expired nearly 20 years ago!

 

December 2020

For the final time in 2020, Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters.  We start this time round with a look at a case involving the Land Property Act of 1924 and cynical breach of covenant.  Next come two conflicting decisions regarding the use of illegality as a defence where it was allowed in a Clinical Negligence claim yet disallowed in a case of Solicitor’s Negligence.  Finally for this year, and as no surprise I’m sure, two judgments concerning Part 36 including juicy one centred on the use of the terminology “subject to contract”.

As always please do get in touch with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments, queries or would like advice or assistance with your ATE or funding arrangements.

 

November 2020

The end of this crazy year is in sight now however legal judgments and key litigation decisions continue unabated.  For this reason, take time out of your busy schedule to sit back, relax and look through the penultimate ATE Matters of 2020 from Legal Protection Group. We start this edition with a look at ‘Waiver by Election’ and its impact in the contract dispute between Delta Petroleum (Caribbean) Ltd v British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation.  The Disclosure Pilot is back under the spotlight with what appears to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ for both the claimant and defendant in one particular example. A lot of people will have been waiting for the outcome as to whether the case of Swift v Carpenter could be appealed given the potential impact on the discount rate.  With refusal by the court, the new discount rate calculation remains although it is understood the defendant may consider another go so watch this space!  Last but not least, Belsner v Cam Legal Services is an appeal decision everyone running CFA cases should take particular note of given the potential ramifications.

 

October 2020

The summer has come and gone but the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to brighten your day.  We start this month with a key decision resulting in three CFAs being deemed unenforceable and subsequently invalidated due to the uplift exceeding 100%.  ATEMatters would not be the same without reference to Part 36 and this month is no exception as we bring you details of three recent case judgments. Finally in this edition we look at whether the High Court exercised discretion correctly in not allowing a claimant to abandon single joint expert and adjourn trial.

 

September 2020

Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters with our take on the latest decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation, funding and insurance.  This month we start with a Supreme Court decision to depart from an assumed test as to whether a covenant restrictive of the use of land was in restraint of trade.  Glover v Barker considers the sometimes difficult position of a litigation friend’s liability for costs.  A very interesting case next resulting in a decision determining the judge was not entitled to evaluate evidence on causation. CPR 45.29I (2)(c) comes under the spotlight and is well worth noting and we finish this edition with the potentially emotive subject of a patient’s capacity to consent to treatment.

 

August 2020 Issue

In these unprecedented times we now find ourselves in week 20 of Covid-19 lockdown.  Everyone is learning to adapt to new working practices and the Courts are no exception so Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation.

We start this edition with a particularly interesting case decision dealing with the ‘duty of care’ owed to a third party.  Anything which gives clarity to the use of DBAs is a bonus and this month we look at the impact on getting paid should a DBA be terminated which is pretty important.  ATE Matters would not be the same without a decision relating to the ubiquitous Part 36.  Again, this month is no exception and I would love to know if this case was insured!  With disbursement funding in ever increasing circulation, the uncertainty of loan interest and recoverability comes under the spotlight with a judgment which is one to take note of if you make use of CCA lending.  Finally in this edition, we highlight an interesting case looking at client anonymity and one which could add a useful tool to a claimant’s kit.

 

July 2020 Issue

Welcome to the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection group, showcasing the key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.  This month we start by looking at an attempt to depart from a costs budget on the basis there had been an ‘underspend’.  McKenzie friends and their ‘rights of audience’ come under the spotlight in the case of Ameyaw v McGoldric and ors, whilst Farmer v Chief Constable of Lancashire highlights the always tricky subject of CFAs and retrospectivity which is well worth a read.  We finish this edition with two cases which will be of particular interest to anyone involved in Clinical Negligence litigation.  A decision involving secondary victims and their witness to an ‘event’ is considered with our final offering looking at the impact of late evidence submission and relief from sanctions.

 

June 2020 Issue

Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the June edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent and key case judgments affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole.  In this month’s edition, failure to engage in ADR plays a pivotal role.  We start though with a judge’s use of statistical evidence to prove causation being upheld on appeal.  A decision regarding a ‘Calderbank’ offer made during detailed cost assessment comes under the spotlight followed by three very important judgments relating to the costs consequences of failing to engage in ADR.  Finally in this edition we look at a decision over ‘standard of proof’ which will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved in general civil litigation.

 

May 2020 Issue

Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters containing the most recent and important updates affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole.

We start this month with two cases bringing vicarious liability for the wrongful actions of an employee under the spotlight.

The following updates this month are , I’m sure, going to be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in clinical negligence litigation especially the last.  The case of XDE v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust brings into focus again the tricky subject of switching a case from legal aid to a CFA/ATE arrangement and the possible implications.

 

April 2020 Issue

During this unprecedented time of uncertainty, HMCTS and the MoJ have put in place a number of changed working practices including telephone/video hearings and prioritising cases to be heard ensuring both the safety of everyone concerned and that the justice system continues to operate effectively.  The following link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation gives more information how the courts and tribunals will operate during the current climate.

As cases are still being heard, Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the April edition of ATE Matters containing the latest court judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.

 

March 2020 Issue

It may well be wet, windy and miserable outside but once again you can look forward to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection group.  This month our friend, Prof. David Chalk, gives us his views on the latest key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation.

We start this edition with some guidance from the Chancellor of the Hight Court on the implementation of the new Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts (PD51U) scheme.  The case of Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020] has provided particular interest and this latest update is no exception.  For the second month in a row, and a judgment which will be of utmost interest to anyone involved with Litigation Funding, is a decision on the application of the ‘Arkin Cap’ and one contrary to a case reported in last month’s edition.  We have included a couple of cases to finish off this edition which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in Clinical Negligence work.  Firstly, the case of Burke v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2019] and a decision concerning ‘Expert Shopping’ and finally, another judgment relating to fixed costs and one applicable to all schemes not just RTA.

As always we welcome your views on ATEMatters or anything to do with the world of litigation insurance and funding so please do get in touch if you have any comments or if we can help in any way.

 

February 2020 Issue

We start this month with an extremely important decision in the case of Burden Holdings (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Fielding [2010] EWHC 2995 (Ch) and one which anyone involved with third-party funding should take note of.  In essence, the decision centred on the application of the  ‘Arkin Cap’ and whether a funder can be made the subject of a costs order.  Although an RTA case, the decision in Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 can equally apply to any case where a fixed costs scheme is in place.  The case of Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1858 is one definitely requiring some further reading especially for any firm involved in holiday sickness litigation.  The final two case updates this month will be of interest to your injury litigation colleagues.  The judgment in Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2020] EWCA Civ 17 is instrumental in determining whether fixed costs and QOCS apply to appeals, whilst Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB) looks at a Judge’s application of the Bolam test in determining causation.

As always, our sincere thanks to David Chalk of University of Winchester for providing us with our case updates.

 

January 2020 Issue

Welcome to the first edition of ATEMatters for a new decade and happy New Year from all of us at Legal Protection Group.

We kick off the New Year with an interesting claim focused on the balance of probability as to how damage was caused.  No edition would be complete without judgments relating to Part 36 and this month is no exception with two cases making the list.  Rules relating to Relief against sanctions are still confusing and in this edition we highlight a decision to refuse relief being overturned on appeal

 

December 2019 Issue

T’is the season to be jolly and once more LPG has a jolly good read for you with the Xmas edition of ATEMatters.  We start with a very interesting decision concerning a liability insurer and whether they should be the subject of a third-party costs order.  ATEMatters would not be the same without a Part 36 judgment and we fail to disappoint with the inclusion of Ho v Adelekin which considers Part 36 offers alongside the fixed costs regime.  The wording of and departure from the Law Society model CFA has come out of the cold again in the case of Healys LLP v Partridge leading to a judgment with huge potential costs ramifications.  One for your injury litigation colleagues next with a look at a case dealing with the difficult and emotive subject of ‘loss of chance’ and at which point medical evidence should be considered.  Finally, and to finish off 2019, do the circumstances of a late service of witness statement by the defence allow for relief from sanctions? Dootson v Newhouse seeks to show us the way.

 

November 2019 Issue

Now the nights are drawing in and the weather starts to turn, what better way to give yourself that Ready Brek ™ “glow” than to settle back with a hot drink and indulge yourself with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  We start this month with a judgment affecting third-party funding which could have had huge ramifications for the industry.  The omnipresent judgment relating to Part 36 appears this edition in the guise of Horne v Prescot (No 1) Ltd and a we take a look at a recent challenge to the Law Society model CFA.  Included are two topics which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved with Clinical Negligence litigation and we finish off the November edition with a look at the recent report published on DBAs and new draft rules.

As always our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester without whom ATEMatters would not exist.

 

October 2019 Issue

It might be a wet and windy October so far but one sure fire way to brighten your day is to settle down with a hot drink and read the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.  A real mixed bag of judgments and case updates this month starting with the determination as to whether correspondence from a claimant could be taken as ‘without prejudice’.  We have included two case updates relating to Employment matters this month which we feel may be of interest to you or your Employment colleagues and we finish with two updates which we are sure will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved with Injury work.

As always we welcome your feedback on ATE Matters and naturally please do get in touch if you have any queries on the world of ATE insurance and funding.

 

September 2019 Issue

It’s that time of year again, the kids are back at school and the Christmas decorations are fighting for space on the shelves with the Halloween kitsch.  Never fear, the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection group is really something this month to get your fangs into.  Top of the list this month, and no doubt one which will bring a sigh of relief, is the judgment on Withers v Joyce & Nugent dealing with solicitors’ liability for costs.  ATE Matters would not be the same without something relating to Part 36 and again we fail to disappoint however, the subject of Without Prejudice is prominent this time round with two recent judgments worthy of note.  Finally, one to share with your injury litigation colleagues, some clarity on the Court’s approach to client witness evidence and the disparity with medical records.

As always please do get in contact with us if you have any feedback on ATE Matters or if you have any queries or need advice on ATE insurance and/or litigation funding.

These are available to read in our September 2019 edition.

 

August 2019 Issue

Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group and hopefully something to help take your mind off of the first Ashes Test result.  The granting of a security for costs order is our headline this month followed by an interesting judgment revolving around the entitlement of an agent to commission.

A couple of cases which your injury litigation colleagues may be interested in especially the long awaited judgment on the conjoined cases of Demouilpied & West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust which could have had a huge impact on the ATE industry if there had not been a sensible decision.  Finally this month we finish on another ‘hot’ topic i.e. the validity of moving a case from Legal Aid to a CFA.

As always we welcome your feedback so please do get in touch to let us know your thoughts on ATEMatters.

These are available to read in our August 2019 edition.

 

July 2019 Issue

The summer is here, the sun is shining and to brighten up your day further, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month, our friend Professor David Chalk, gives us his views on a smorgasbord of key topics affecting the legal community including a delicious judgment relating to a doubtful defence.  Other delicacies in this edition include the ubiquitous Part 36 decision, costs judgments and the ongoing elephant in the room that is switching from Legal Aid to CFA which I’m sure your injury colleagues will find of interest.

As always we welcome your feedback so please do get in touch to let us know your thoughts on ATEMatters.

These are available to read in our July 2019 edition.

 

June 2019 Issue

I’m pleased to present the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group containing Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key case decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation.  This month, a case relating to Norwich Pharmacal orders takes centre stage.  The latest decision in the long running Plevin case is certainly worth a read as are three Part 36 judgments which are making up the support act for this edition.

So if the weather where you are is a little on the gloomy side, grab a coffee and let ATEMatters brighten your day.

As always we welcome your feedback as well as any ideas you may have for future topics for us to cover.

These are available to read in our June 2019 edition.

 

May 2019 Issue

To help celebrate May Day we are pleased to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters with this month’s focus on some key recent judgments and decisions.  Pivotal to anyone involved in litigation funding is the case of Davey v Money [2019] which gives further clarity on the Arkin Cap and potentially a spanner in the works for funders choosing to indemnify the client without the support of ATE insurance protection.

For those of you who use or plan on using the new Disclosure Pilot in the Business and Property Courts should definitely take note of UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019].

Finally this month, a little further clarity on the calculation of success fees and how ATE insurance premiums are to be treated.

As always, if you have any comments on ATEMatters or if you would like to discuss anything in relation to commercial litigation ATE insurance or funding, please do get in touch.

These are available to read in our May 2019 edition.

 

April 2019 Issue

The wonderful spring sunshine may have left us temporarily but to brighten your day we have the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  As always our esteemed colleague, Professor David Chalk, has given us the benefit of his views on all the latest judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. 

This month we start things off with an interesting case looking at alleged fraud and the setting aside of a trial outcome followed by a judgment by Sir Rupert Jackson himself involving a contract dispute.  For those of you involved with CFA work, the decision on Butler v Bankside is worth noting and we round things off with a couple of cases from the world of clinical negligence litigation which some of your colleagues may be interested in.

These are available to read in our April 2019 edition.

 

March 2019 Issue

As we spring into March, welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Contract and Professional Negligence judgments are first to bloom this month including a very interesting case relating to a claimant failing to prove what they would have done had there been no negligence.  Inevitably we could not leave off  a quick mention of the MoJ’s LASPO review and there is a link to the full report for those who wish for some ‘light’ bedtime reading.

These are available to read in our March 2019 edition.

 

February 2019 Issue

The weather may be dull but once again we are pleased to forward you the latest edition of ATE Matters to brighten up your day.  This month we revisit some old friends including the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and the ‘sticky’ issue of CFA transfers.  All things costs are high on the agenda again and we have more detail on the capped costs pilot running for commercial claims.

These are available to read in our February 2019 edition.

 

January 2019 - Review of 2018 and a Heads Up on 2019

To kick-start 2019, our first edition of #ATEMatters will give you a refresher on some of the key judgments and legal updates from the previous twelve months specifically focusing on those relating to CFAs and Part 36 which were hot topics in 2018.

In this month’s edition we also give you a heads-up on key developments to look out for this year including new rules regarding Defamation, Business & Property claims and a new pilot scheme for capped costs.

These are available to read in our January 2019 edition.

 

December 2018 Issue

It is that time of year again.  The Christmas Tree is up, the party season has begun and the December edition of #ATEMatters is out!  This month we consider key judgments across a range of litigation areas including gems such as a solicitor’s retainer, the ever present Part 36 minefield and two decisions your injury colleagues will be interested in.  These are available to read in our December edition.

Merry Christmas from all at www.legalprotectiongroup.co.uk

 

November 2018 Issue

As the days draw in and the twilight deepens, LPG is on hand to brighten your working day with the latest edition of our ever popular #ATEMatters.  This month, our good friend Professor David Chalk, enlightens us with his pick of the top recent judgments and decision affecting the world of litigation.  This month we focus in on Vicarious liability, ownership of documents, budget sanctions and, last but certainly not least, how a Deed of Indemnity can be used to defeat a Security for Costs Application.  Do give me a shout if you would like to know more about the LPG Deed which has already been proven in Court. These are available to read in our November edition.

 

October 2018 Issue

Once again our good friend, Professor David Chalk, has picked out his selection of the latest key legal updates and judgments affecting the world of litigation.  A shorter version this month, but no less interesting, with the latest on litigation and legal advice privilege and non-party costs orders.These are available to read in our October edition.

 

September 2018 Issue

With the summer behind us and the kids back at school, what better way to relax than a coffee and the September edition of ATE Matters.  Once again our good friend, Professor David Chalk, has picked out his selection of the latest key legal updates and judgments affecting the world of litigation.  An interesting mix this month including the ubiquitous Part 36 but also security for costs and details of a new pilot scheme for disclosure.  These are available to read in our September edition.

 

August 2018 Issue

Costs proportionality and reasonableness, vicarious liability and validity of CFA are all available to read in our August edition.

 

July 2018 Issue

Decisions regarding Part 36 offers are flavour of the month and have nearly taken over July’s edition.  The judgment on Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018], relating to the proper naming of opponents, being the headline to stop the clean sweep. These are all available to read in our July edition.

 

June 2018 Issue

In this month’s edition of ATEMatters we divert away from CFA judgments with five new and diverse decisions taking centre stage. These are all available to read in our June edition.

 

May 2018 Issue

The theme of the year continues with another judgment on the thorny issue of Part 36.  For the second month running, CFA transfer comes under the spotlight and we take a look at a recent decision relating to the clearly emotive subject of third-party capture. These are all available to read in our May edition.

 

April 2018 Issue

Notice of funding, Interim Payments under a CFA and the Need for risk assessment in post-LASPO CFA's are all available to read in our April edition.

 

March 2018 Issue

Want to hear more about Litigants in person and Litigation Privilege, then read our March Issue.

 

February 2018 Issue

In our February Issue we report on CFA's, provisional assessment of costs, a disclosure pilot and more besides.

 



Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Please select your areas of interest: