Contents of Points of Dispute


Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

The pre-1/4/13 Costs Practice Direction dealing with the contents of Points of Dispute used to state at CPD 35.3(3) they must:

“where practicable suggest a figure to be allowed for each item in respect of which a reduction is sought”

This requirement has been dropped from the new Practice Direction to Part 47. I wonder why?


2 thoughts on “Contents of Points of Dispute


  1. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    Anonymous on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    easy

    Courts are now just going to pluck a figure from the air.

    thats why they want a PD 8.3 letter with a figure to guide them. So they can continue with the pandering to the Insurers. When the new proportionality rule bites, there wont even be the pretence of assessments


  2. Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
    The Pelican on said:

    Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524

    Common sense perhaps. If PODs say “D offers 20 letters” few people also add on “totalling £300″. The monetary value of the number of letters offered is unnecessary, particularly if the hourly rate is also in issue. However, it may have been a good idea to retain the rule for objections to disbursements.

    In my experience everyone ignored the old CPD and will do the same regarding the new CPD in any event.

    Incidentally with regards to the first posters comments CPD 47 para 8.3 seems fairly pointless but it is hard to construe it in a pro defendant light. Def arguments on what is a proportionate amount would be contained in the PODs.

    Agree that assessments are pointless if costs are deemed disproportionate but the problem is you do not know until assessment if costs are disproportionate. However, uncertainly on proportionality may keep a few of us in jobs for a while longer!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>