This Q&A considers how are costs that have already been summarily assessed to be dealt with. Should they be excluded on the basis that a costs order has already been made or should they be included on the basis that their inclusion enables the judge considering the costs budget to see all the costs incurred to date in the proceedings which will assist in seeing whether the costs are reasonable and proportionate? It is based on the costs budgeting rules in place from 1 October 2020. for the position prior to that date, see: When completing a costs budget, how are costs that have already been summarily assessed to be dealt with? Should they be excluded on the basis that a costs order has already been made? Should they be included on the basis that their inclusion enables the judge considering the costs budget to see all the costs incurred to date in the proceedings as that will assist in seeing whether

The issue in this question is whether the defendant, as a limited company, would be considered to be a litigant in person (LIP) and whether a litigant in person would be able to recover costs as opposed to out-of-pocket expenses for the application. There are three issues to consider: Legislation—whether a LIP can recover costs It used to be the case that the recovery of costs for LIPs (excluding practising solicitors) was limited to properly incurred out-of-pocket expenses. However, the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (LP(CE)A 1975 (as amended) enables LIPs to recover (subject to summary or detailed assessment) the same category of costs as solicitors acting for themselves. In other words, it is possible for LIPs to receive compensation for losses which they have not actually incurred on the basis that this represents notional monies which would otherwise have been spent on instructing a solicitor. The LP(CE)A 1975, s 1(1) provides: 'Where, in any proceedings to which this subsection applies,

When does the liquidator's appointment take effect in a creditors' voluntary liquidation? A creditors' voluntary liquidation (CVL) usually commences at the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up (see section 86 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Re Norditrack (UK)). As you have identified, although as a matter of practice the members meeting which passes a resolution to wind up a company usually takes place immediately before the creditors' meeting (IA 1986, s 98) on the same day, there is statutory provision for there to be a gap of up to 14 days between the members' meeting and the creditors' meeting. What are the liquidator’s powers if appointed prior to the creditors' meeting? If the meetings do occur on different

Creditors are entitled to remove a liquidator in a voluntary liquidation (CVL), and they can do this by a decision procedure under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. For more information on how this procedure must take place, see Practice Note: Removal of voluntary liquidator by creditors' decision procedure. Where the creditors decide to remove the liquidator and a new liquidator is appointed, the convener or chairman (as the case may be) must, as soon as reasonably practicable, deliver the certificate of the liquidator's removal to the removed liquidator. The removed liquidator must deliver

Criminal Procedure Rule (CrimPR), SI 2020/759, r 34.2 is entitled ‘Service of appeal and respondent’s notices’. CrimPR, SI 2020/759, r 34.2(5) provides as follows: 'Where the appeal is against conviction or against a finding of guilt, unless the respondent agrees that the court should allow the appeal— (a) the respondent must serve a respondent's notice on— (i) the Crown Court officer; and (ii) the appellant; and (b) the respondent must serve that notice not more than 15 business days after service of the appeal notice.' The clear inference is accordingly that, where the respondent intends to contest an appeal to the Crown Court, they are required to file a Respondent’s Notice to that effect. Failure to file

We are not aware of any ground for treating an expense of this sort as anything other than an ordinary general estate expense, recoverable by the personal representatives from the estate under section 31 of the Trustee Act 2000, to be paid

Practice Note: Variation of Will or intestacy after death sets out the various factors and considerations relevant to deed of variations (DoVs) and should be referred to for more detail on the points covered in this Q&A. A DoV records a gift by the original beneficiary of an estate of all or part of the benefit(s) which the original beneficiary is entitled to inherit from the estate. Unless appropriate elections are included in the DoV, the gift is an inter vivos gift by the original beneficiary for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes and either a potentially exempt transfer or a chargeable transfer, depending on who the assets are transferred to. The DoV may also be a disposal by the original beneficiary for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes. Disposing of a limited right (such as an interest

In short, a corporate entity can bring a claim in defamation for damage to their corporate or business reputation as long as the damage has resulted in (or is likely to result in) serious financial loss. A corporate entity cannot recover damages for hurt feelings, because a corporate entity has no feelings to hurt: see Duncan and Neill on Defamation, Chapter 25 Damages, Damages

It is very well-established that claims for loss of services (including child-minding) are legitimate and can be recovered under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976). The usual position is for a court to calculate the commercial cost of care or services that have been (and will be) provided gratuitously by a new carer (see Practice Note: Gratuitous care and services), and then apply a discount to reflect the fact that those services were provided gratuitously (see Housecroft

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the leasehold interest of the common areas is already subject to easements/rights benefitting the leasehold interest in the flats. As the freehold and the lease of the common parts will come into the common ownership of the residents company, the first point

Under the provisions for mandatory social housing relief in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL Regulations), SI 2010/948, reg 49, a chargeable development comprising qualifying dwellings or qualifying communal development (in whole or in part) is eligible for relief from liability to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and a qualifying dwelling is one that satisfies at least one of six conditions specified. Condition 2, under CIL Regulations, SI 2010/948, reg 49(4), contains various elements, including that the dwelling is occupied in accordance with shared ownership arrangements within the meaning of section 70(4) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and the percentage of the value of

The damages awardable for breach of the covenant to repair at the end of the term are assessed on the following two-fold approach. At common law, the measure of damages recoverable by a landlord at the end of the lease for breaches by the tenant of their repairing obligations is the cost of the repairs that the tenant should have carried out, plus loss of rent (and other losses) during the period needed to carry out those works (see Joyner v Weeks). However, the common law measure of damages is capped by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927), which