Home / Dispute Resolution / Costs and funding / Funding arrangements

Legal News

Additional liabilities, proportionality and clinical negligence claims (King v Basildon)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 24 January 2017

Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

What are the learning points from this Cost Master’s decision?
What was this case about?
Why is this decision important?
What was the decision in this case?
Interpretation of CPR 44.3(5) and CPR PD 48

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Master Rowley, sitting in the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) considered the approach taken by Master Gordon-Saker in the earlier case of BNM v MGN in terms of the application of the post-Jackson test of proportionality to after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums and conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees. The Master chose to interpret the test under CPR 44.3(5) differently, as expressly not applicable to such additional liabilities.

Popular documents

Pre-action—costs recovery

Pre-action—costs recoveryThis Practice Note considers the recovery of costs incurred pre-action. It sets out provisions in the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), CPR 44, pre-action protocols and court guides. It notes the provisions for civil cases that come within the fixed costs regime on or after

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principlesThis Practice Note explains what a summary assessment of costs is and sets out the key principles to understanding summary assessment, ie when summary assessment can be sought, the circumstances in which summary assessment will not take place and which members of the

Fixed costs—position prior to 1 October 2023

Fixed costs—position prior to 1 October 2023This Practice Note considers the fixed costs position prior to 1 October 2023 under Part 45. It explains the purpose of fixed costs and the different categories of claims and costs to which they are applicable.Note, the extension of the fixed costs came

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved