Search for: "Cost v. Cost" Results 1941 - 1960 of 48,941
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2010, 3:31 am
In Parker v Seixo [2010] EWHC 90162 (costs), which concerned the legal costs of a road traffic accident claim, the Court found that it should not consider the reasonableness of an After-The-Event insurance policy premium where the underwriter was better placed to rate the financial risk faced by the insurer and where there was no expert evidence to suggest that the ATE premium was unreasonable. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 9:43 pm by Simon Gibbs
The Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker prefaced his recent decision on proportionality, in Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs), with the warning: “this judgment should not be taken as any attempt at providing guidance. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:55 pm by Suzanne Ilene Schiller
For the Association of Corporate Counsel, Nicole recently wrote about the decision in Menasha Corp. v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 3:31 am
In Parker v Seixo [2010] EWHC 90162 (costs), which concerned the legal costs of a road traffic accident claim, the Court found that it should not consider the reasonableness of an After-The-Event insurance policy premium where the underwriter was better placed to rate the financial risk faced by the insurer and where there was no expert evidence to suggest that the ATE premium was unreasonable. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 9:20 am by admin
Sometimes this approach can result in cost savings, but it can also end in a costly damages and legal costs award as occurred in the case of Brito v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:00 pm
Sometimes this approach can result in cost savings, but it can also end in a costly damages and legal costs award as occurred in the case of Brito v. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 9:10 pm by Shane Smith
The first case is a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Sierra Pacific Power Company v. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 7:33 am by Allan Blutstein
Pitts v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Federal Bureau of Prisons was not required to create records indicating the cost of keeping plaintiff in its custody (data that BOP did not maintain), and that BOP fully discharged its FOIA obligation by releasing cost data related to the institution in which plaintiff is held. [read post]