Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Relief post Denton.

The  decision last week of Warby J in YEO V NEWS GROUP is a textbook example of how to deal with an application for relief.C was 3 months late in serving a notice of funding (N251 ) in a defamation action. The relevant information had been supplied by letter 3 months before issue. D wisely did not object to the application. Relief was granted having regard to the revised Denton test.See paras 140-148 of the judgment. Dead right.

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

Monday, 4 August 2014


I have just had a chat with an eminent claimant firm which tells me that overnight defendants have stopped paying additional liabilities. This is due to the remarks made by Lord Neuberger in COVENTRY V LAWRENCE.
It might be worth noting that;
1. Parliament legislated for recoverability and more recently again to terminate it ;
2. The extremely thorough Jackson inquisition criticised the logic but not the legality of recovery ;
3. All that the President said was that the paying party might want to make representations;
4. If the complaint is that it is unlawful because of the expense then why would base costs , court fees or any other expenditure not fall into the same basket?

Friday, 1 August 2014


Lord Neuberger has put the ravenous tiger amongst the pigeons in the very recent COVENTRY V LAWRENCE judgmenthttp://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0076_Judgment.pdf
At paras 32-48 inclusive he raises but does not answer a multi- billion pound question.Is it unlawful to require a paying party to stump up  a success fee and ate premium ? Might not these act as a burden such as would meddle with the right to a fair trial and also offend Article 1 to the first protocol (the right to respect for property , here one's  loot )?
The paying party has been given the opportunity to make submissions.
Is is odd that the point was not grasped by the same Judge in TRAFIGURA where the numbers were colossal , a bill just over £100m.
It may well all blow over .Only time will tell.