Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
             As a result of this, the costs issue itself was the subject of written submissions and of a full hearing before the Court - which of course adds to the overall costs of the litigation.� In teasing out the issues it may be useful at the outset to identify the position adopted by each of the parties.
         More significantly, the second defendant engaged with the authorities cited by the plaintiff and in particular questioned whether this was litigation brought for the benefit of the estate or was in the nature of a lis inter partes as between the two defendants.�
         In order to deal with these issues, I propose to look more generally at the law relating to costs and then at the authorities relied on by the parties, the implications of which were seriously disputed by them.�
         Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties it seems that behind their different approaches to the case law lies a fundamental difference between them as to the relevance and applicability of s.168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.� Those sections appear in Part 11 of the 2015 Act which is headed �Legal Costs in Civil Procedures� , and they provide as follows:
168(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, a court may, on application by a party to civil proceedings, at any stage in, and from time to time during, those proceedings�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.