Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

United Kingdom > London Bar > Costs > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings

Editorial

Other

Index of tables

  1. Costs – Leading sets
  2. Costs – Leading silks
  3. Costs – 2018 silks
  4. Costs – Leading juniors

Costs – Leading silks

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

Costs – 2018 silks

  1. 1

Costs – Leading juniors

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

Who Represents Who

Find out which law firms are representing which Costs clients in London Bar using The Legal 500's new comprehensive database of law firm/client relationships. Instantly search over 925,000 relationships, including over 83,000 Fortune 500, 46,000 FTSE350 and 13,000 DAX 30 relationships globally. Access is free for in-house lawyers, and by subscription for law firms. For more information, contact david.burgess@legal500.com.

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE WHO REPRESENTS WHO SITE

The β€˜quick’ and β€˜efficient’ 4 New Square has β€˜some of the best barristers in their field’ and β€˜is β€˜always prepared to go the extra mile for a successful outcome’. Nicholas Bacon QC advised on the leapfrog appeal of Budana vs Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trusts, which concerned how a solicitor’s retainer under a conditional fee agreement is transferred from one firm to another, and on Essar Oilfields Services Ltd vs Norscott Rig Management, which brought about issues surrounding third party costs in arbitration.

Hailsham Chambers is β€˜an excellent set, particularly in relation to costs litigation’. Alexander Hutton QC acted for the defendant in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry, which detailed the effect of costs budgeting on future detailed assessments. Andrew Post QC represented claimants on a cost budget regarding a defective metal hip replacement claim which was budgeted at Β£2.2m less than was sought.

39 Essex Chambers has worked on a number of costs litigations in the Court of Appeal and High Court. Vikram Sachdeva QC is very active on matters surrounding the assignment of conditional fee agreements, most notably in cases such as Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Sally Anne Hyde and Griffith v Paragon.

Temple Garden Chambers has a strong presence in this space and regularly advises on costs management hearings and group actions. In the combined Supreme Court cases of Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; Frost and Other v MGN Ltd, three national newspapers argued against paying success fees and ATE premiums on the grounds that doing so would infringe the papers’ freedom of expression rights. The refusal to pay was successfully challenged by the respondents, represented by Simon Browne QC, who in BNM v MGN also persuaded the Court of Appeal that the senior costs judge was wrong to hold the new test of proportionality applies to still recoverable additional liabilities. James Laughland was a junior in both standout cases.

GC Diversity and Inclusion Report

In partnership with...

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

Press releases

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to

Press Releases in the UK

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to