Holly.gif

Information for "Mole v Parkdean Holiday Parks Ltd (2017) EWHC B10 (Costs)"

Basic information

Display titleMole v Parkdean Holiday Parks Ltd [2017] EWHC B10 (Costs)
Default sort keyMole v Parkdean Holiday Parks Ltd (2017) EWHC B10 (Costs)
Page length (in bytes)1,452
Page ID8844
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page1
Counted as a content pageYes

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation22:03, 29 April 2017
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit20:43, 13 October 2023
Total number of edits4
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (10)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
"The issue that arises for determination is whether the First Claimant ('the Claimant') is entitled to recover a success fee pursuant to a costs order against the Defendants in respect of work carried by his solicitors for a period after the Claimant's mother was replaced as a litigation friend by the Official Solicitor. ... In my judgment the analysis in Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 18 is clear and it leads to the conclusion that the retainer that was first entered into 2006 has remained effective during the course of the claim unaffected by the substitution of a new litigation friend. Accordingly, the claim for costs in the period after the appointment of the Official Solicitor is not dependent upon the Official Solicitor having entered into a new agreement on 1 April 2013 or indeed founded upon any such agreement. There was already in existence an agreement which was sufficient to ground the liability of the Claimant to pay the success fee under the original CFA for the period after the appointment of the Official Solicitor."
Information from Extension:WikiSEO