Regional Costs Judge meaning

BDW Trading Ltd v Lantoom Ltd [2020] EWHC 2744 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This case is notable because the hearing occurred the day after CPR 3.15A took effect. The claimant argued that the previous rule ought to govern matters since the significant developments relied upon, together with the correspondence and the application, all pre-dated the amendment. The judge observed that, without a relevant transitional provision, that may not be correct; however, neither side suggested that the altered wording made any difference on the facts. It proved highly advantageous that the claimant had expressly set out its initial expectation regarding the volume of documents it anticipated receiving. Regional Costs Judge Richard Lumb has publicly stressed how critical this can be. By setting the stated assumption against what actually materialises, showing a significant development becomes far more straightforward. Practitioners should be aware that the new regime in CPR 3.15A, which came into force on 1 October 2020, requires prompt action whenever a significant development...

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England and Wales Fraud challenge under English Arbitration Act—restrictions on appeal upheld The Court of Appeal in K1 v B [2026] EWCA Civ 261 determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal from a decision under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act). Section 68 allows a challenge to an award ‘on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award’, while section 68(4) limits any permission to appeal from such decisions to the first instance judge. This outcome underscores the Act’s emphasis on finality and efficiency, constraining appellate involvement in award challenges save in exceptional circumstances. The court further rejected the contention that the first instance conclusion—that the proposed...

This Practice Note outlines the principal contrasts in how employment tribunals operate in Scotland compared with those in England and Wales. Now that oversight of Scottish employment tribunals has been devolved to Scotland, it is uncertain whether these distinctions will be consolidated and broadened in future... Statutory framework and constitution Although Scottish tribunals may proceed differently from those in England and Wales, the underlying statutory regime is identical. The structure and procedures of Scottish tribunals are set out in a single code: the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), SI 2024/1155. Before 2004, Scotland followed its own procedural rules. Given that this statutory scheme governs Scottish employment tribunals, the primary point of reference should be the ET Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155. Nevertheless, employment tribunals in Scotland have their own President, appointed by the Lord President of the (Scottish) Court of Session, who is Scotland’s most senior judge and head of the judiciary. The Scottish employment tribunal also has a Vice President (rather than English Regional Judges),...