His role will focus on the future challenges in dealing with costs and case management, costs budgeting, and
the successful recovery of costs.
Not exact matches
The ICC Report notes that this approach was adopted despite the fact that the ICC and at least half
of the other major institutional rules do not contain a presumption in favour
of the
recovery of costs by the
successful party.
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.
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».
Lord Neuberger said that while there was no «good policy reason» to refuse the father
recovery of the premium, it seemed «unlikely» that «the rules would have envisaged that a losing party's liability for a substantial sum should depend on the
successful party's appetite for, and financial ability to take, the risk
of losing and paying
costs».
His reported cases include RH Green & Silley Weir v BR (limitation period against 3rd party), de Bry v Fitzgerald (security for
costs), Hartt v Newspaper Publishing (libel concerning a work by Michelangelo), Pearson v Sanders Witherspoon (valuation
of loss
of chance), Siebe Gorman v Pneupac (status
of consent orders), Senate Electrical v NTL (liability
of an employee for acquisition warranties) and Bendell v Smith & Others (a
successful recovery action by a lender on a shared appreciation mortgage equity release — the only such case to go to trial).
successful claimant's
costs recovery restricted after fully contested trial to a fixed sum reflecting just 6.7 %
of the budgeted base fees and disbursements