The Supreme Court’s decision in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov  UKSC 19 is the most significant consideration of the tort of conspiracy since the House of Lords’ 2008 decision in Total Network SL. Matthew Bradley considers its particular impact on our understanding of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy here.
Informa have published a review of 2017 Insurance law authored by Alison Padfield QC and Miles Harris. The article considers some of the more important and interesting developments in insurance law, both case law and legislation, in 2017.
In addition to high profile developments such as the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIG v Woodman and Gard Marine, the review focuses on particular aspects of a number of cases which may be less well known, and which contain one or more points of real interest or practical use to those involved in the daily application of insurance law.
Costs budgeting is plainly important, as I will amplify later, but it is rarely thought to be interesting. However, there is now a fair body of law and practice, and there is some craft in producing, developing and attacking budgets.
I will start at the beginning. Costs budgeting started, after some pilot schemes, in April 2013, and the rules have been revised since. They are now a familiar part of the litigation landscape. However, problems and issues remain, many of which are inherent in cost budgeting.
Note by Stephen Innes on the latest decision in a cluster of applications by clients seeking disclosure of their former solicitors’ file. Paul Parker of 4 New Square appeared for the successful solicitor.
Master James has noted that courts are receiving a large and increasing number of these types of claims; the increase was attributed to a new business model by which new lawyers seek to challenge the deduction by previous solicitors from their client’s damages of a success fee under a post-LASPO CFA.
A number of SCCO decisions in this situation have now been reported in the last 4 months:
Shail Patel considers this High Court decision in which the Court found that an individual (C) did not have the right to be heard at an FRC Tribunal hearing, nor a right to redaction of findings against him prior to publication of the Report.