The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."
Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."
Chambers & Partners 2017
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
Coward v Phaestos Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1256
Case Summary | Judgment | 2 October 2014
James Abrahams acted for the defendants, the IKOS group of companies, in this appeal relating to costs in computer copyright litigation. The total costs were of the order of £20 million.
The central issue was a ‘Calderbank’ offer to settle, made at an earlier stage by the claimant, Mr Coward. At first instance, Mrs Justice Asplin held that IKOS had obtained more relief than had been offered, and that Mr Coward should therefore be liable for IKOS’s costs (subject to a 15% reduction).
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that there were three relevant material improvements on the offer achieved at trial and the Judge had therefore exercised her discretion as to costs appropriately. The 15% reduction was held to be an appropriate reflection for dropping part of the Counterclaim. The appeal was dismissed.
It was said (obiter) that the rigid approach of rule 36.14(1A) only applied to offers within Part 36 CPR, and that the more flexible approach of Part 44 CPR applied to other sorts of offers to settle.
James Abrahams was instructed by Herbert Smith.