In Matière SAS v. ABM Precast Solutions Ltd,[1] the High Court held that a Part 36 offer made by the claimant represented a genuine offer to settle the claim but effectively offered nothing in respect of the counterclaim. Accordingly, despite having decisively won both the claim and the counterclaim, the claimant was not entitled to the huge costs benefits arising under Part 36 in respect of the costs of the counterclaim.
Tech Contracting: How to Draft and Act to Avoid Disputes
PART 1 Technology. Every business needs it. You either build it yourself or buy it from a third party. As litigators focussed on tech disputes for decades, we’ve seen the same problems with IT outsourcing leading to court appearances again and again. The solutions aren’t groundbreaking – they lie in careful drafting and smart conduct during the contract performance. But in the pressure of finalising …
UK Civil Justice Council Publishes Review of Litigation Funding
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published its highly anticipated final report on the regulation and development of litigation funding in England and Wales. This comprehensive report addresses the implications of the UK Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & others) v. Competition Appeals Tribunal & others,[1] examines various funding mechanisms, and proposes legislative reforms to clarify and regulate these funding types.