“inspires great confidence in those that use her.”
Chambers & Partners
Judith is regularly instructed in high-value clinical negligence cases, both on her own and with a leader. She also has considerable experience of costs issues and disputes arising out of clinical negligence claims.
“Has unrivalled costs experience, and provides clear, user-friendly advice.” Chambers & Partners
Including CFAs, CCFAs, recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, both detailed assessment and appeals; disputes under the Solicitors Act 1974; regular appearances in the SCCO and the High Court; listed in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners).Judith acts for both claimants and defendants, for receiving and paying parties, and for solicitors and lay clients. She has considerable experience in costs issues arising where GLOs have been made or are being considered and in costs capping in GLO cases. She lectures very regularly on costs matters.
“She is very bright, marshals the arguments very well and gives very good advice.” Chambers & Partners
This includes employer’s liability and public liability, for example accidents at work, occupier’s liability, disease and work-related upper limb disorder, stress at work, catastrophic injury. Judith regularly conducts both Fast and Multi-Track litigation, acting for claimant and defendant. She has considerable experience in Group Litigation, including costs issues. She also undertakes health and safety prosecutions and CRU appeals. She has acted with QCs in chambers on several very high-value cases, again for both claimant and defendant. She deals very regularly with costs issues arising out of personal injury litigation.
Including solicitors’ negligence, auditors’ negligence, insurance brokers’ negligence. Most of Judith’s work in this area arises out of solicitors’ negligence in the conduct of personal injury actions, and in professional negligence issues arising out of costs matters.
She was recommended for Costs Litigation and Personal Injury by Chambers & Partners and for Costs Litigation and Personal Injury by the Legal 500.
“An incisive and excellent advocate, particularly in detailed assessment.” Legal 500 2016
“Her advice, whether in conference or in writing, is always unambiguous and her ability to consider all aspects of a particular case with an open mind is a most valuable asset.” “Her style is very straight to the point and efficient. She can be relied upon to adhere to her brief and to present the case with determination and vigour.” Chambers & Partners 2016
“An outstanding barrister who is extremely bright and reliable.” Legal 500 2015
“A very good grasp of the figures and key issues” Legal 500 2015
“She’s exceptional and she really knows her stuff.” “She is very bright, marshals the arguments very well and gives very good advice.” Chambers & Partners 2015
“Has unrivalled costs experience, and provides clear, user-friendly advice.” Chambers & Partners 2014
“Provides an outstanding level of service and great advice; destined for great things.’ Legal 500 2014
“I have used her on many occasions: she knows the subject, is very pleasant to work with, and I have no hesitation instructing her.” Chambers & Partners 2014
“inspires great confidence in those that use her” Chambers & Partners 2012
“an impressively strong command of the law” Chambers & Partners 2012
“makes the client feel at ease through her ability to speak in layman’s terms.” Chambers & Partners 2010
“paperwork, preparation and diligence catch the eye” Chambers & Partners 2010
“a sensible, thorough and polished advocate” Chambers & Partners 2009
“dots every ‘i’ and crosses every ‘t’” Chambers & Partners 2009
“meticulous on detail, with a good commercial perspective” Legal 500 2009
Grace Ellen Mugweni (By Her Mother & Litigation Friend Susan Ruth Mugweni) v NHS London (Formerly South East London Strategic Health Authority)  EWCA Civ 20
Costs & Litigation Funding
Maclaverty Cooper Atkins V the Lord Chancellor 8 May 2014  EWHC 1387 (QB)
Blue Sphere Global v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Customs and Excise (SCCO 20 December 2011)
First case to look at the assessment of a success fee where a discounted CFA had been used rather than a no win no fee agreement.
Parkers v Martin  EWCA Civ 883
On the facts a judge had been entitled to allocate costs in accordance with liability because he had regard to a notional counterclaim.
Melina Serpes v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Customs and Excise 22 December 2008 (VAT Tribunal 22.12.08)
Litigant in person unable to recover costs of her time in the VAT Tribunal.
Peakman v Linbrooke Services Ltd 13 November 2008  EWCA Civ 1239
The allocation of a case to the multi-track because of a counterclaim that should not have been brought should have been taken into account by the trial judge.
Roger Barlow v Lucy Ewart Perks (Sup Ct Costs Office) 19 October 2007 Lawtel 31 October 2007
A conditional fee agreement was not valid and enforceable because there had been material non-compliance.
(1) K Fosberry (2) B Fosberry (3) BJ Rice & Associates v Revenue & Customs (Ch D) 25 May 2007  EWHC 3344 (Ch)
A conditional fee agreement was unenforceable where it had various deficiencies that were significant enough to prevent substantial compliance with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000.
Myatt v National Coal Board (No.2)  1 WLR 1559
CA: solicitors ordered to pay half costs of unsuccesful appeal concerning the enforceability of their CFA
Various Claimants v Gower Chemical and others (CC) 28 February 2007 Lawtel 8 March 2007
Regulation 5(1) CCFA Regulations laid down matters that had to be inserted into a CCFA.
Joseph Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd (CA) 14 February 2007  EWCA Civ 91
It was not open to a costs judge in advance of an assessment of costs payable to acceptance of a Part 36 payment.
Wilkinson v Fitzgerald  EWCA Civ 1166
Flora Stylianou v (1) Masatomo Toyoshima (2) Suncorp Metway Insurance LTD (2013)  EWHC 2188 (QB)
Nicholas Drukker & Co v Pridie Brewster & Co 12 December 2005  EWHC 2788 (QB);  3 Costs LR 439
Jamie Alexander Yates v National Trust  EWHC 222
Held that no duty of care was owed by the National Trust to one of its independent contractors. This is a significant case for occupiers regarding their duties to employees of contractors who come onto their land.