Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Court of Appeal has given useful guidance on the issue of interim costs awards pending a final outcome of a large trade mark litigation matter, as part of the ongoing litigation between Specsavers v Asda.
The court felt it was appropriate (despite Asda arguing costs should be reserved pending the outcome of its application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court) that although costs had not yet been formally assessed, Specsavers be awarded their costs, subject to a substantial discount to reflect the issues upon which it had lost as the court had already made a final determination of all issues concerning liability; except those specific issues referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which costs must be reserved.
This pragmatic decision confirms that successful parties in a case should not have to wait unduly for their costs; however a win overall does not guarantee an award of costs for those specific issues they have been unsuccessful on.
On 14 January 2019 a Capped Costs Pilot Scheme was introduced in the Leeds and Manchester Business and Property Courts, and has been set to run for two years.
View blog
In a lengthy majority judgment accompanied by two powerful dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court found yesterday that land acquired and held for statutory purposes cannot be registered as a village green where that registration is incompatible with the statutory purpose for which it is held.
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims.
An 89 year old former patient pathway co-ordinator has been awarded £200,000 by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and age and disability discrimination following her dismissal on capability grounds.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up