Defective but not fatal: Duffy v Birmingham City Council and the limits of technical challenges in costs litigation
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Duffy v Birmingham City Council [2026] EWCA Civ 146 (full judgement here) a case arising from a housing disrepair claim but which ultimately turned on a procedural issue in detailed assessment proceedings. While the underlying claim concerned housing conditions, the appeal itself addressed a question that […]
Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Limited & Ors – Substituting parties after limitation: The Second Gateway narrows
On 6 February 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision on the amendment and substitution of parties after the expiry of a limitation period. The headline message is clear: it has just become considerably harder to substitute a defendant once limitation has passed. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Limited & Ors [2026] […]
When WhatsApp costs you the Hearing: Key take-aways from MacInnes & Anor v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 3252 (SCCO)
In a recent Solicitors Act detailed assessment dispute, the Senior Courts Costs Office (Costs Judge Nagalingam) delivered an important ruling on the scope of a solicitor’s “file” for disclosure when an invoice includes charges for work communicated via instant messaging. The decision serves as a timely reminder that digital communications matter – and that internal practice policies do not […]
Wasted costs and “Negligence”: Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies the threshold in Gurney v Randall & Others [2025] EAT 154
Introduction On 23 October 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) handed down its judgment in Gurney v Randall & Others [2025] EAT 154, a case that re-examines the meaning of “negligence” in the context of applications for wasted costs against legal representatives. The decision confirms that the threshold for wasted costs remains exceptionally high and that […]
The role of Pamplin in Election Applications under CPR 47PD 13.3
This blog has been written by Ellis Tubb, Junior Legal Drafter at 8PP. Ellis recently graduated from our Training Academy, and this is one of her first published pieces for 8PP – we’re delighted to showcase her insight on the role of Pamplin in Election Applications. The case in brief The London Borough of Camden […]
Birmingham v Lee revisited in allocation appeal
The recent appeal decision in Fishwick v Gentoo Group Limited has provided further clarification on allocation and costs in housing disrepair litigation. The appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Freedman at The County Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who overturned a first instance ruling and gave strong guidance on the proper application of CPR 26.9(1)(b) and Practice Direction 7A […]
Court awards pre-allocation costs in housing disrepair claim despite omission of CPR 46.11
Guidance from Craig Leigh on the continuing application of Birmingham City Council v Lee and court discretion on pre-allocation costs In Carter v Leeds City Council (County Court at Leeds, District Judge Hill, 17 June 2025) the court considered whether, following the omission of CPR 46.11 from the CPR, it retained jurisdiction to award pre-allocation costs in […]
Court Clarifies protocol compliance in Housing Disrepair Claims
Guidance for landlords and tenants on expert evidence under the Housing Conditions Protocol In Lancastle v Curo Group (Albion) Limited [2025] EWCC 48 – a combined judgment on two similar disrepair claims – the County Court has provided significant guidance on how and when tenants may obtain expert evidence, and the consequences of premature or unilateral […]
A key win for clarity in track allocation of housing disrepair claims: Matthews v Nottingham City Council
Akshit Vohra of 8PP examines how Rules 26.9, 26.13 and the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules align in securing appropriate track allocation In Kathleen Matthews v Nottingham City Council, the Court reaffirmed that, upon a realistic assessment of the value of a claim, the normal track for allocation is the Fast Track rather […]
Supreme Court clarifies car finance commission law: What Johnson v FirstRand Bank means for consumers and lenders
On 1 August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank and the conjoined appeals of Hopcraft and Wrench. The case concerned whether undisclosed or partially disclosed commissions paid by lenders to car dealers in hire-purchase transactions gave rise to liability in tort or equity as well as (in the case of Mr Johnson) […]