In Smith v. W. Ford & Sons [2021] EWHC 1749, Stephen Glynn, acting for the widow of a mesothelioma victim, successfully resisted the defendant’s attempt to subvert the masters’ usual practice of not cost budgeting in any asbestos disease case.
The defendant argued that the case should be subjected to budgeting and that the RCJ practice of not budgeting asbestos claims was wrong in principle. Master Davison disagreed. He made the point that the ability of the RCJ to list terminally ill asbestos cases as quickly as they currently are would not be possible if budgeting was applied to all asbestos cases.
Moreover, he said that QB and Chancery masters did not share the defendant’s view that budgeting controlled costs better or more effectively than detailed assessment. However he refused to be drawn further saying this was a “somewhat sensitive issue”. The defendant has lodged an appeal.
Bethany Hutchison considers a judgment handed down on 1 July 2025, by the Court of Appeal in Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 823 (“Re S”), giving detailed consideration to the issue of inter-sibling contact post-placement order. The guidance is much welcomed by…
In the week the Hague Convention came into force, whilst the domestic courts heard an important appeal on Covid refund claims, Anirudh Mandagere and Tom Collins bring us all the latest news both internationally and nationally. And as always, members of Deka Chambers are at…
On 1 July, chambers was delighted to welcome leaders and members of the CPS Homicide Unit for a training and social evening. First Senior Treasury Counsel and Joint Head of Chambers Tom Little KC, was able to draw upon his experience of prosecuting some of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR