At Kings Chambers, the costs team has a pre-eminent reputation for its excellent track record in handling a wide spectrum of complex costs disputes. In one high-profile case, Kevin Latham, Craig Ralph and Fraser Barnstaple appeared before the Court of Appeal in Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School, which addressed the issue as to whether an order approving a settlement for damages to be paid to a minor amounted to a “judgment” for the purpose of Part 36 costs. In a separate matter, John Meehan successfully represented the respondent in a Court of Appeal case arising from a housing disrepair claim, where the solicitor had signed the certificate but the mandatory certificate to confirm compliance with the indemnity principle was not completed - the court ruled that detailed assessment proceedings could still be effectively commenced even where the bill of costs is defective, and a solicitor’s signature on a bill confirms compliance with the indemnity principle, even where the mandatory certificate is not fully completed.
The Legal 500 > United Kingdom - The Bar > Regional Bar > Northern Circuit > Costs and litigation funding
-
The Legal 500
-
United Kingdom - The Bar
-
Regional Bar
-
Northern Circuit
-
Costs and litigation funding
-
Administrative law and human rights
-
Agriculture
-
Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
-
Clinical negligence
-
Commercial litigation
-
Company and insolvency
-
Court of protection (health and welfare)
-
Crime (general and fraud)
-
Education
-
Employment
-
Family: children and domestic abuse
-
Family: divorce and financial remedy
-
Immigration
-
Inquests and inquiries
-
IT, telecoms and data protection
-
Licensing
-
Media, entertainment and defamation
-
Personal injury
-
Planning
-
Private wealth, probate and tax
-
Professional disciplinary law
-
Professional negligence
-
Property and construction
-
Social housing
-
Sport
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Education
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
Classements par PratiqueRegional Bar
Retour United Kingdom - The Bar- Midland Circuit
- Midland Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Costs
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Education
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- Intellectual property
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
- Midland Circuit
- North Eastern Circuit
- North Eastern Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Education
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- Intellectual property
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
- North Eastern Circuit
- Northern Circuit
- Northern Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Costs and litigation funding
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Education
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
- Northern Circuit
- South Eastern Circuit
- South Eastern Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Costs and litigation funding
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and enquiries
- Intellectual property
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
- South Eastern Circuit
- Wales and Chester Circuit
- Wales and Chester Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Costs and litigation funding
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Education
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- Intellectual property
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social housing
- Sport
- Wales and Chester Circuit
- Western Circuit
- Western Circuit
- Administrative law and human rights
- Agriculture
- Business and regulatory crime (including health and safety)
- Clinical negligence
- Commercial litigation
- Company and insolvency
- Costs
- Court of protection (health and welfare)
- Crime (general and fraud)
- Employment
- Family: children and domestic abuse
- Family: divorce and financial remedy
- Immigration
- Inquests and inquiries
- Intellectual property
- IT, telecoms and data protection
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and defamation
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private wealth, probate and tax
- Professional disciplinary law
- Professional negligence
- Property and construction
- Social Housing
- Sport
- Western Circuit
Costs
Leading Juniors
Paul Hughes – Kings Chambers ‘A very persuasive advocate with a wealth of experience. He is a safe pair of hands.’
Kevin Latham – Kings Chambers ‘Kevin is a very diligent and knowledgeable costs specialist, with a measured and good-humored courtroom style that comes across very well to the judges.’
John Meehan – Kings Chambers ‘John’s standout qualities are his intelligence, precision, judgement, and absolute command of the subject matter. He is practical, commercial, and strategically astute. He identifies the real point quickly, strips away the noise, and gives advice that is both authoritative and usable in practice.’
James Miller – 18 St John Street Chambers ‘James has a broad and in-depth knowledge of all things costs, is a strong advocate, and provides excellent service.’
Craig Ralph – Kings Chambers ‘A charismatic and very persuasive advocate with a wealth of experience.’
Steven Turner – Kings Chambers ‘Steven is a very skilled advocate, particularly in respect of the ‘headline hitting’ points. He delivers compelling arguments and paints a strong picture regarding the strengths of the case.’