Simon Teasdale
Simon Teasdale has a specialist costs law practice, which sits alongside a broader commercial practice including professional liability and international arbitration work.
In addition to being a ‘go to’ junior for Silks in all costs and funding-related litigation, he regularly appears as sole counsel in complex and high-value cases in the High Court and Senior Courts Costs Office.
Simon is ranked as a “Rising Star” in costs law by the Legal 500.
“Simon’s written and oral submissions are very polished. An exceptionally talented advocate with razor sharp insight leading straight to the core of the issue. He could be a future star.” – Legal 500, 2023
“Simon is incredibly user friendly, combined with an expertise in costs litigation that is far beyond his call” – Legal 500, 2022
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2015
Membership
- Lincolns Inn
Qualifications
- BA Jurisprudence (2014)
- BPTC (2015)
Education
- University of Oxford (2010 - 2014)
- City Law School (2015)
3 Contributions by Simon Teasdale
PRACTICE NOTES
Solicitors Act 1974 s 68 applications (England and Wales): delivery of statute bills and client papers—jurisdiction, CPR procedure, court orders, liens, and case law
This Practice Note explains when and why delivery of a bill is required, how to seek delivery, and the types of orders the court may grant. It also highlights examples of instances where the court has, and has not, exercised its discretion under section 68 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974), together with the effect of delivery of a statute bill and delivery up of the client’s papers. Note, the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974) is referred to as SA 1974 in this Practice Note...
Delivery of a bill
When and why this is sought
Delivery of a bill is commonly pursued by a client or other chargeable party in two situations:
the solicitor wishes to retain monies on account without providing an adequate bill
the client believes the solicitor’s request for an interim payment on account is unduly high
The court’s jurisdiction
The High Court holds an inherent jurisdiction to require a solicitor to deliver a bill of costs, a jurisdiction expanded by SA 1974, s 68. The charges must relate to legal work. In addition, the court may direct delivery up of any documents in the possession, custody or power of the solicitor...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Third‑party litigation funding applications: step‑by‑step process, information and diligence requirements, pricing and term sheets (including post‑Paccar structures), exclusivity and investment approvals
This Practice Note outlines a standard method commonly adopted by funders when evaluating a matter and determining whether to back it. It also sets out the considerations that may need to be addressed when assessing the availability of finance. It is intended to guide both claimants and their advisers through key early steps in the process.
Initial enquiry and NDA
An initial, succinct scoping call with a funder, without revealing any confidential material, is useful to confirm that, at least in principle, nothing would stop that funder from properly reviewing the claim for support (eg any conflict of interest or other connection with parties to the prospective claim).
Investment mandates differ from one funder to another and may, for example, vary in relation to:
the minimum and maximum sums a funder can commit;
the minimum ratio between the funder’s outlay and the anticipated damages;
the jurisdiction(s) in which it is prepared to support claims;
the categories of dispute it is prepared to finance.
Funders employ differing funding structures (eg direct funding of claimants, or capital advanced to a law firm so it can act for a claimant on a conditional/contingent basis)...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Third-party litigation funding explained: claimant benefits, funders’ investment tests, pricing structures (post-Paccar), regulation and ATE insurance
What is litigation funding?
Litigation funding—often termed litigation finance or third party funding—describes an arrangement whereby an independent funder pays some or all of the costs and legal outlay of bringing a claim. Although such backing may (and sometimes does) be provided on a gratuitous basis (eg through ‘crowd‑funding’ or by a benefactor), references to ‘litigation funding’ generally point to the for‑profit market in commercial litigation finance. This Practice Note concerns commercial litigation funding. Claimants commonly obtain finance to meet all disbursements and legal fees in line with a pre‑agreed budget set out in a funding agreement. Funding can, however, also be extended for discrete items, for example to cover one or several disbursements such as premia for after‑the‑event insurance (ATE), experts, external counsel, or arbitration costs. Most frequently, third party finance is provided on a non‑recourse basis, meaning that:
if the claimant makes no recovery, nothing is payable to the funder and the funder has no recourse against the claimant for its lost investment
if the claim succeeds, the funder is entitled to a success fee (or fees)...
Dispute Resolution
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
