Costs Law Reports - Online Launch
I previously commented on the relaunch of Costs Law Reports (see post).
Yesterday they launched the associated new website. The Legal Costs Blog had been granted a sneak advance preview but they have clearly been busy over the last day or two making further improvements.
The site provides access to all cases reported by Costs Law Reports, being almost 700 cases to date. In addition to recent decisions, these include such fundamental older costs law cases as Gundry v Sainsbury, Meday Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd and Brush v Bower Cotton & Bower (a Firm).
Although I don't do criminal work myself, the large number of criminal cases reported, that are not available elsewhere, will be invaluable for those who do.
The site has a useful and intuitive search function. Although the "keyword" option could probably do with a bit of work (it currently being based on the index from the print version) there is an excellent and very powerful ordinary text search.
PDFs of judgments are also available for easy printing and taking to court.
Wendy Popplewell, Association of Law Costs Draftsmen Chairman, says: "Costs Law Reports are absolutely vital for all costs draftsmen. The expert editors, Master Rogers and Michael Bacon, discover and report so many cases which are either not reported elsewhere or not reported for a very long time. I know that they have been sorely missed by many of our members since their publication faltered late in 2008. We are delighted that Class Legal have committed to getting the publication back on track, and will be offering an improved service."
At only £299.95 plus VAT for the online service, this has got to be a winner. Pay a visit: Costs Law Reports.
Yesterday they launched the associated new website. The Legal Costs Blog had been granted a sneak advance preview but they have clearly been busy over the last day or two making further improvements.
The site provides access to all cases reported by Costs Law Reports, being almost 700 cases to date. In addition to recent decisions, these include such fundamental older costs law cases as Gundry v Sainsbury, Meday Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd and Brush v Bower Cotton & Bower (a Firm).
Although I don't do criminal work myself, the large number of criminal cases reported, that are not available elsewhere, will be invaluable for those who do.
The site has a useful and intuitive search function. Although the "keyword" option could probably do with a bit of work (it currently being based on the index from the print version) there is an excellent and very powerful ordinary text search.
PDFs of judgments are also available for easy printing and taking to court.
Wendy Popplewell, Association of Law Costs Draftsmen Chairman, says: "Costs Law Reports are absolutely vital for all costs draftsmen. The expert editors, Master Rogers and Michael Bacon, discover and report so many cases which are either not reported elsewhere or not reported for a very long time. I know that they have been sorely missed by many of our members since their publication faltered late in 2008. We are delighted that Class Legal have committed to getting the publication back on track, and will be offering an improved service."
At only £299.95 plus VAT for the online service, this has got to be a winner. Pay a visit: Costs Law Reports.
Labels: costs draftsmen
posted by Simon Gibbs at
5:34 AM
2 Comments:
Did anyone ever win your bottle of champagne? I have only just seen the controversy. Surely, the answer is simple: if a child goes to a contested hearing (rather than an approval hearing) his case is treated precisely the same way as an adult's. That is the rule that has always applied, and it applies under the new RTA regime as well. Doesn't the confusion arise from the introduction to your own question? "If the claimant is a child, damages are not agreed, the matter proceeds to a Stage 3 hearing and the claimant has beaten the defendant's offer, the costs recoverable by the claimant are governed by the new CPR 45.34." No, they aren't. 45.34 applies to settlements. The premise of your question is that there is no settlement. So 45.34 is irrelevant. The situation would be governed by CPR 45.38. I can't say I have spent very long on this so apologies if I am being unfair, this is an excellent and informative blog.
By
Jacques Hughes, At
16 April, 2010 08:34
Sorry, I meant to say if the claimant beats the offer they are governed by CPR 44.32. Of course, if he doesn't they are governed by CPR 44.38
By
Jacques Hughes, At
16 April, 2010 12:30
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home