Standard basis of assessment meaning

JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43 In JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43, Costs Judge Rowley addressed a challenge where the defendant said the claimant’s Bill of Costs was defective because no expert fee notes were supplied and there were no separate itemisations for the medical agency’s charges and the experts’ own fees. The defendant invited the court either to strike out the Bill or to assess the expert fees at nil. Having examined the key points, the judge concluded that comparisons could be drawn with the often sparse detail on counsel’s fee notes, which still require judicial scrutiny. Mr Mallalieu submitted—and the court accepted—that further particulars can be demanded where necessary. However, on a standard basis assessment the evidential burden rests with the receiving party. If a terse invoice prompts the court to doubt whether a bare figure on a fee note is reasonable, it is the receiving party who...

In this issue: Probate Powers of attorney and advance decisions Court of Protection Spouses, civil partners and cohabitants HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Insolvency—Private Client Digital assets and cryptoassets Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis®PSL community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Probate Court finds deceased had made gifts mortis causa (Rahman v Hassan) Mini summary: GIFTS—GIFTS MORTIS CAUSA—DECLARATIONS. The Chancery Division granted the claimant’s application for declarations concerning dealings between the claimant and the deceased individual. The deceased had effected ‘donationes mortis causa’ while contemplating his death. The defendants, relations by blood of the deceased’s late wife, expressly resisted the claim on the basis that, at the date of death, the will had not been executed so as to capture,...

Queenscourt Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 460 (TC) Queenscourt supplied takeaway meal combinations featuring hot chicken, fries and a cold dipping pot, with some bundles also offering other chilled items such as cookies and yoghurts. The business had originally accounted for each meal deal as a single standard-rated supply, but subsequently revised its position, concluding that the cold elements, including the dip pots, were distinct zero-rated supplies. HMRC accepted an initial error correction without querying whether the dip pots constituted separate supplies. Later, Queenscourt filed a further error correction covering different VAT periods. On that occasion, HMRC disputed the inclusion of the dip pots and maintained they were an ancillary component of a single supply of hot food, and so shared the same VAT liability (ie standard-rated). That challenge also prompted a review of the VAT repayment arising from the first error correction. The review culminated in a recovery assessment. The assessment was issued under section 80(4A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994), which sets the...

This Practice Note sets out the requirements of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), where a processor handles personal data for a controller in a commercial setting. It proceeds on the basis that readers are already familiar with core data protection concepts, terminology, and the functions of key regulators. For an initial overview of data protection law, consult the ‘key principles and concepts’ tab in the UK Data Protection toolkit, which is a recommended starting point for research. For a higher-level primer on this topic and connected matters, see: Data sharing and transactions—overview. This Practice Note also sits within the Data protection negotiation guide—controller: processor—collection, which practitioners drafting or negotiating data protection clauses between a controller and a processor may find helpful. In brief UK data protection legislation aims to ensure information about living people (within the scope of ‘personal data’) is treated fairly and responsibly. To achieve this, the UK GDPR places extensive duties on those ‘processing’ personal data (and...

This Practice Note offers a concise outline of the principal considerations relating to detailed assessment. Use it as a starting guide and read it alongside the following Practice Notes, which provide fuller, more detailed coverage: Detailed assessment—what is it, who does it and where? Detailed assessment—commencement Detailed assessment—the hearing Detailed assessment—costs, settlement and agreement What is detailed assessment? A detailed assessment is the process by which the court decides what sum the paying party must pay the receiving party for litigation costs. It applies where the parties cannot reach agreement on costs and where a summary assessment is not suitable. For an introduction to summary assessment and the circumstances in which it is undertaken, see: Summary assessment—overview. The framework for detailed assessment is set out in CPR 47 and CPR PD 47. As a general rule, the costs of the proceedings (or any part of them) are not assessed on a detailed basis until the case has concluded. The court...

When will the court allow an appeal against a finding of fact? The appeal court will permit an appeal only where the lower court’s decision was: wrong; or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity in the lower court proceedings (CPR 52.21(3)). For more information, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations. Where an appeal seeks to overturn a trial judge’s primary findings of fact, intervention is exceptional. An appellate court will not disturb a first instance judge’s factual conclusion simply because it would have reached a different view (Stocker v Stocker). The higher courts have repeatedly cautioned against interfering with a trial judge’s factual findings unless compelled to do so. That restraint extends not only to findings of primary fact, but also to the assessment of those facts and the inferences properly drawn from them, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) and by the Court of Appeal in FAGE v Chobani...

[ To be typed on headed notepaper of employer ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert name of employee ], Re: [ insert name of employer ] (the Company) As you are aware, we have been consulting with employee representatives regarding the redundancy position, considering whether redundancies might be avoided, the number of roles at risk reduced, or their effects softened, together with the composition of the selection pool and the basis for selection. Following consideration, the selection benchmarks have been finalised as: [ specify criteria eg attendance record, disciplinary record, skills or experience, standard of work performance, aptitude for work, efficiency, qualifications or training, greater experience in certain particular tasks or on certain machines, length of service ]. [ There have not been [ any OR sufficient ] applications for voluntary redundancy. ] We have [ therefore ] completed a selection assessment, applying the agreed criteria to you and the other employees within the pool...