Hornsby v Clark Kenneth Leventhal (A Firm)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 2000 |
| Date | 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
6 cases
-
Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.v v Design Air Ltd
...included in the brief fee (Loveday v Renton (No 2) [1992] 3 All ER 184. (In the Court of Appeal see Hornsby v Clark Kenneth Leventhal [2000] 4 All ER 567). 319 Where it was not reasonable to instruct counsel the fee should not be allowed, but for a hearing it will often be cheaper to instru......
-
Ernest Davis v General Legal Council
...of costs, with different standards for each tier. The difference in the approaches were outlined by Jackson J in Hornsby and Others v Clark Kenneth Leventhal (a firm) and Others [2000] 4 All ER 567 at page 570: ‘…The appeal by the first and second appellants against the detailed assessment ......
-
Piyush Lalji Shah and Another v Brian Breed and Another
...is not a re-hearing. The proper approach is that the appeal should be allowed if I am satisfied that the decision was wrong ( Hornsby v Clark Kenneth Leventhal [2000] 2 Costs LR 295). The issue is whether Deputy Master Rogers reached a decision which was within the ambit of reasonable decis......
-
Baron Gabriel Van Der Elst v [1] LPA International Inc., [2] Lane Pettigrew Associates (St. Lucia) Ltd, [3] Jon Lane Pettigrew
...instructions; 7. lost opportunities; 8. chronologies, etc.; 9. skeleton arguments save for the Court of Appeal. See Hornsby v Clark Kenneth Leventhal (A Firm) [2000] 4 All E.R. 567; 10. dramatis personae; 11. opportunities to prepare further when the court is not sitting; 12. preparation o......
Request a trial to view additional results