Sentences with phrase «of adverse costs»

Given that the wife also faced the risk of an adverse costs order if her application failed, one can perhaps see why such applications were not made more widely.

Only a tiny minority of cases enter stage 3 where there is the possibility of an adverse costs outcome.

• How does the existence of adverse costs insurance affect settlement dynamics?

This imposes a limit on the amount of adverse costs.

This would serve to maintain the fruitful effects of adverse costs while securing value for those who require access to justice.

Further, the claimants are not people that can afford risking everything against the possibility of adverse costs.

For example, $ 200,000 in coverage would cost somewhere between $ 2,350 and $ 3,350 depending on the nature of the case and the assessed risk of an adverse cost award.

Speculative litigation is unattractive to third - party funders since they have to provide the money to cover up - front legal costs, and also bear the risk of an adverse costs ruling.

The trustee is entitled to its indemnity but the beneficiaries may be characterised as hostile litigants and will be at risk of adverse costs orders inter se.

Insurers are often frustrated by persistent litigants in person who have little regard for legal costs or court time and for whom the threat of an adverse costs order is nothing but an empty threat.

Nevertheless, it may be that the prospect of adverse costs deters lawyers from bringing a class action when the lawyers indemnify their clients; if this is the case, then one would expect to see a marked difference in the number of class actions brought in Ontario compared to a jurisdiction with no cost shifting (such as British Columbia).

The prospect of adverse costs, which often encourages settlement before trial, may transform from an incentive to settle to a source of leverage for plaintiffs, who may feel empowered to proceed to trial and seek a greater recovery than is available through a settlement.

For a premium the issuer of the product undertook to pay any portion of an adverse cost award over and above the damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Even a successful plaintiff who recovers damages at trial but does not recover more in damages than a previous offer made by the unsuccessful defendant may find that they are the subject of an adverse cost award.

If a plaintiff is contemplating purchasing first pay insurance it is important that they reach an understanding with their lawyer as to whether or not the unpaid disbursements will be a first claim against the policy limits in the event of an adverse cost award.

The new trustees now faced a classic dilemma; at the point where funds available were lowest, they had to decide whether to proceed with a case against the original trustees with all the inherent risks that entailed in terms of adverse costs if they lost or, not take action but risk a future claim by the trust's beneficiaries for failing to carry out their duties in properly preserving the trust's assets.

Premiums are quite rightly lower than before, reflecting the reduction, but not elimination of adverse costs, but as own disbursements has always made up circa 40 - 50 % of overall claims costs, average premiums were never going to be lower than half price in the round.

As a direct result of that, Mr Justice Jack found that the Earl's position at the mediation had been wholly unreasonable, and based part of his adverse costs sanction package on that.

The green paper suggests the potential deterrent for claimants of an adverse costs award could be partially addressed by cutting down costs; for example by exempting collective actions from court fees, or by capping legal fees.

It may help with overall predictability of adverse costs exposure but to suggest that a product of informed guesswork should be a substitute for a review of tasks actually completed and time actually spent is rather misguided.

A small business that has suffered loss as a result of a breach of competition law rules, but which can not afford the costs of litigation in the High Court, and the possibility of an adverse costs ruling against them if they lose, can shift that risk to the third - party litigation funder.

A significant feature of post-Woolf judicial power has been the opportunity to encourage appropriate party behaviour ex ante by the threat of adverse costs.

Consequently, access to justice is being reduced: where the costs and risk of adverse costs deter litigants from properly making or defending claims they are being failed by the state.

They can also run the risk of an adverse costs ruling and protracted litigation in the knowledge that, even if the claimant is able to commence the claim, their resources are likely to be finite and the pressure to agree to a settlement for less will therefore increase with time.

The rising costs of prosecuting class actions and the risk of adverse costs awards rises has represented a significant impediment to the commencement of class proceedings and, as noted by Belobaba, access to justice, even in the very area that was specifically designed to achieve this goal, is becoming too expensive.

Typically, the funder will agree to finance the legal fees and expenses — and assume the risk of an adverse costs award — in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or final award.

The risk of an adverse cost award can deter a plaintiff with a valid claim proceeding to trial in the face of an offer to settle which their lawyer advises them is unreasonably low.

Does all of it go towards paying the disbursements, leaving the client on the hook for $ 100,000 of the adverse costs award?

In some Common Law jurisdictions, particularly in the English High Court system, the Calunius Fund can provide funding for Claimants to pay premiums for insurance policies covering the risk of adverse costs or the need to provide security for costs.

In general, plaintiffs that may have previously been inclined to accept a lower settlement in order to avoid trial and risk incurring a loss can now purchase the security to refuse inadequate settlements and proceed to trial with little risk of adverse costs.

The potential for settlment or damages must be weighed against the expense of litigation and, in some jurisdictions, the risk of an adverse cost award.

The Court of Appeal earlier this year in Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark [2011] EWCA Civ 25, [2011] 2 All ER 240 concluded that solicitors were acting lawfully when they elected not to insure with a third party against the risk of adverse costs, choosing instead to indemnify out of the firm purse.