Summary assessment

What is summary assessment?

The provisions relating to summary assessment are set out in CPR 44 and CPR PD 44. Summary assessment is defined under CPR 44.1 as the procedure where costs are assessed by the judge who has heard the case or application. The general rule is that the court should carry out a summary assessment of costs either at the conclusion of a fast track trial, in which case the order will deal with the costs of the whole claim, or at the conclusion of any other hearing which has not lasted for more than one day (CPR PD 44, para 9.2). Where costs are summarily assessed in relation to any other hearing (not the trial), the court order will deal with the costs of the application or matter to which the hearing related. If the hearing disposes the whole claim (eg if there is a successful strike out application) the court order can deal with the costs of the whole claim (CPR PD 44, para 9.2). If the court considers that summary assessment is inappropriate it may order the costs to be dealt

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents