Sentences with phrase «successful litigants»

[28]... The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not make them successful litigants.

Knowing that successful litigants may not be fully reimbursed for their legal costs, this should encourage parties to settle disputes rather than proceed to a full trial, as the legal costs will continue to escalate as the litigation moves forward.

Costs serve three main purposes: to indemnify successful litigants, to encourage settlement, and to sanction unreasonable behaviour by litigants (Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, at para 22).

These types are payment arrangements are very common in civil litigation such as personal injury suits where successful litigants are awarded damages.

Moreover, one expects that successful litigants are entitled to the fruits of their effort.

Successful litigants can not assume that they will be awarded costs.

Successful litigants (whether these be deep pocket corporates or individuals with limited financial means) in the future can expect to recover a much - increased amount of costs from the unsuccessful party with a significantly lower «recovery gap».

However, with the SHR remaining at the July 1997 level, the recovery gap becomes wider and wider as time goes by and this effectively penalises successful litigants in Hong Kong, as they are left to settle the (often significant) difference between their actual costs and their recoverable costs out of their own pocket.

In order to preserve the fundamental benefit of costs shifting for successful litigants, lawyers are under increasing pressure to provide more for less.

«It is essential for justice that a successful litigant is able to recover reasonable legal costs, instead of a pre-determined fixed sum.

To collect monetary compensation in a personal injury case venued in Montana, a successful litigant must show that the defendant was negligent.

In practice, a successful litigant can usually expect to recover between 60 % to 85 % of his / her actual costs from the unsuccessful opponent.

The primary consideration for all practitioners should be the litigation risk of a court making a costs sanction against a successful litigant, in the event of a refusal or failure to engage in ADR and mediation.

Moreover, while costs awards are intended to make a successful litigant whole, costs in the Federal Court are determined in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules, which prescribe fixed dollar amounts for various steps in the litigation process regardless of the actual costs incurred: Litigants can only expect to recover approximately 25 per cent of their actual legal costs in complex cases.

«Every successful litigant hopes for finality, and this matter was previously litigated and clearly decided in their favour by the appeal court in prior proceedings,» says Dillon.

«It has for many decades been accepted that a successful litigant does not recover all of his own costs from the other side.

A successful litigant who has relied upon the Handbook as a route - map to judgment might justifiably feel let down at not being able to discover in a similarly practical and approachable manner how to enforce an award in the face of a recalcitrant employer.

Costs awards should reflect more what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties, rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant.

Solicitor and client costs are set at a higher scale compared with party and party costs, and approach complete indemnity to the successful litigant.

While a successful litigant is still presumed to be entitled to costs, other factors, such as the reasonableness of the parties» behaviour, weighs heavily in determining the final award.

Gradually, the concept of awarding a form of compensation to the successful litigant sprouted from the English courts.

Costs awards (are) in the nature of damages awarded to the successful litigant against the unsuccessful, and by way of compensation for the expense to which he has been put by the suit improperly brought.

Practically speaking, when someone's wallet needs to be broken open to pay costs, they present as an aggregate of two things: the expenses or disbursements such as filing fees, witness fees, jury fees, transcripts and photocopying, and a contribution towards the successful litigant's legal fees - not to 100 % but pursuant to a scale set out in the rules of court, often referred to as a tariff.

Upon that, the courts have been called upon to further shed light on circumstances in which an application for increased costs might be available to a successful litigant.

In a civil trial, the successful litigant is often awarded an amount for their legal costs.

While on the one hand, a successful litigant should not have to bear the costs of a lawsuit in which they are successful, on the other hand, if an unsuccessful litigant is required to bear all of the costs of the successful litigant, this would discourage parties from asserting or defending their rights in court.

«Rather than engaging in a purely mathematical exercise, the judge awarding costs should reflect on what the court views as a reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful party rather than any exact measure of the actual costs of the successful litigant.»

Canada, except for Québec, generally follows the «loser pays» rule whereby an unsuccessful litigant may be required to pay a portion of the successful litigant's attorney's fees.

The Brokerage argued that the consumer protection act provided additional damages to a successful litigant, such as attorney's fees and other costs, and so there were other potential «losses».

Not exact matches

Litigants then shifted their efforts to the state courts where they were much more successful.

The Vexatious Litigant by Trevor Todd, past President of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC, and Judith Milliken, QC, an estate litigation, wills, and trusts lawyer with Stewart Aulinger, Vancouver: «We learned first - hand about vexatious litigants in 1982 after winning a successful civil claim.

This means that one litigant, usually the successful one is awarded party and party costs against the other.

Now, Lippman says that the program has been so successful that he will introduce legislation calling for a further level of involvement by non-lawyers in assisting litigants.

While most litigants are aware that an unsuccessful party in Ontario litigation will have to pay the successful party some costs, the details can be somewhat perplexing.

Justice Perell held that she did not retain the lawyers to prepare her to be a successful self - represented litigant; instead, she retained them to represent her and to be her lawyer of record to settle or try her actions.

Some of the other overall findings include the statistical fact that plaintiffs in English courts win their cases 75 % of the time, which is more than double the US figure and that self - represented litigants i.e. litigants without a lawyer, generally beat expectations and were often very successful in court.

While some litigants may relish their day in court if mediation is not successful, and therefore strategically resist settlement at mediation, the power of the arbitrator to impose an adverse verdict would be persuasive.

A Justice Department study found that pro se litigants in immigration appeals were successful 10 % of the time, compared to a 40 % success rate for those represented by pro bono attorneys.

The final example of civil litigation defences involves the successful effort to have a party declared a vexatious litigant.

Like a gangsta, every successful pro se litigant must be prepared to break the rules, because the rules weren't made for us.

But even less notorious litigants could be successful in raising funds via the Web, although perhaps on a more modest scale.

We can only hope that they are successful, and that said success will encourage other tribunals to migrate towards the online environment for the benefit of litigants and administrators alike.

Plaintiff only sought injunctive relief such that the CLRA damages restriction did not disqualify the litigant from seeking recovery of appellate fees as the successful party.

I agree that the case — a startling claim by a group of litigants that need to be taken seriously (even if their method for getting the issue before the courts, i.e., before themselves in the first instance, is unorthodox)-- deserves to be noticed and that other provinces, including Alberta, will be affected if their claim is successful.

Compensation payments from NVICP have averaged $ 782,136 per successful claim through 2011, with an additional $ 113 million dispersed to pay attorney fees and legal costs (the act awards attorney fees and costs for unsuccessful claims provided that the litigants bring their claims in good faith and upon a reasonable basis, as well as for successful claims).

California Court of Appeal Upholds Partial Award of Attorneys» Fees to Successful CEQA Litigant

Home > California > CEQA > California Court of Appeal Upholds Partial Award of Attorneys» Fees to Successful CEQA Litigant

Sino Forest - Insolvency Counsel to successful Class Action Litigants who obtained one of the largest settlements ever against an accounting firm.

We can provide the funding for litigants who have reached a successful judgment or award but who require additional support to get through the annulment and / or enforcement stages to ultimate recovery.

It was widely hoped that three principal benefits would be derived from the change in the law: (i) that the threat of costs would be a weapon in the armoury of the pro bono litigant, thereby establishing equality of arms; (ii) that all income from successful Pro Bono Costs Orders could be ploughed back into facilitating further pro bono activities; (iii) that the Access to Justice Foundation, which controls the distribution of all money generated from pro bono costs orders, could develop a nationwide strategic policy on how best to nurture pro bono activities on the basis of need.