| Display title | Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors [2022] EWCOP 18 |
| Default sort key | Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors (2022) EWCOP 18 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 672 |
| Page ID | 14471 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 07:22, 25 July 2022 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 07:22, 25 July 2022 |
| Total number of edits | 1 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The professional, non-legally-qualified deputy argued that the volume of work, given the size and complexity of the estate, would not adequately be met by the limited local authority rates set out in PD 19B. The court dismissed his appeal, noting that costs which run close to or even exceed the fixed fees constraint do not necessarily establish a basis for an SCCO assessment. |
