Skip to content
Ropewalk - Law firm

Andrew Hogan

Call: 1996
Award

"He has been involved in big cases, is forensically very good, and is a very concise advocate."

Chambers & Partners

Andrew Hogan was called to the Bar in 1996. He has over 20 years’ experience of litigation at all levels of courts and tribunals, having for many years had a common law practice.

These days his areas of expertise include costs and litigation funding, credit hire, personal injury, disability discrimination and special educational needs.

Costs & Litigation Funding

An acknowledged expert in matters of costs and litigation funding with a national reputation and practice in these fields. He regularly undertakes heavy detailed assessments, arguments on points of law, appeals and has an extensive advisory practice including drafting retainers, CFAs, litigation funding agreements and advising upon regulatory matters.

His personal website can be found here.

Credit Hire

For nearly twenty years he has acted in credit hire claims and appeals, including appeals to the Court of Appeal. He regularly undertakes trials, appeals and advisory work on issues of law. In the early years his practice was predominantly on behalf of insurance companies but now is predominantly on behalf of claims handling organisations.

His personal website can be found here.

Personal Injury

Since pupillage, he has undertaken work in the field of personal injury and industrial disease. He continues to maintain a Multi Track practice with a particular interest in cases of brain injury.

He has acted for all the major insurers and accepts instructions in heavy cases for Claimants too.

Disability Discrimination

Since the mid 1990’s, he has acted and advised upon issues of disability discrimination, in the early years in the Employment Tribunal and more latterly in the context of judicial reviews and statutory reviews in the High Court, and claims in the county court for disability discrimination in goods, services, public functions and education.

Special Educational Needs

He has a niche practice in the field of Special Educational Needs, advising both local education authorities and parents on their duties and obligations in this field and appearing for both in the First Tier Tribunal.

He is able to accept appropriate cases under the direct access scheme.

 

Appointments

  • Direct Access Qualified

Memberships

  • Administrative Law Bar Association
  • Discrimination Lawyers Association
  • Personal Injuries Bar Association
  • Planning & Environmental Bar Association

Education

  • LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
  • LLM, University of Sussex

Notable Cases

  • Essar Oilfield Services Limited v Norscot Rig Management Pvt Ltd [2016] LTL 16/9/2016: An arbitrator’s general power to award costs included the power to award the costs of third party litigation funding, which were “other costs” within the Arbitration Act 1996 s.59(1)(c).
  • Da Costa and Another v Sargago and Another [2016] EWCA Civ 764: In a claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident where it was alleged that the claim was fraudulent and the credibility of two Claimants was in issue, a judge had been wrong to exclude one Claimant from court while the other gave evidence. The starting point was that a party was entitled to be present throughout a civil trial and although there were classes of case where a departure from the norm might be justified, the judge had not given sufficient reason for taking such a course.
  • Denise Jones v Spire Healthcare Limited [2016] 3 Costs LO 487; LTL 17/5/2016: An insolvent firm of solicitors could validly assign both the benefit and the burden of a conditional fee agreement to another firm.
  • Stuart John Gentry v Lee Miller and UK Insurance Limited [2016] 1 WLR 2696: The court considered the appropriate approach to granting relief from sanctions in cases where a defaulting party had delayed in applying for relief but could point to evidence which enabled it to allege that the claim was a fraudulent one. It was necessary to consider all the circumstances of the case; a default judgment could not be set aside as a matter of course just because an arguable fraud was alleged.
  • George Andrew Connor (a Protected Party by his Wife and Litigation Friend Rebecca Connor) v Castle Cement and S&S Steel Fabrications Limited and Vesuvius UK Limited [2016] LTL 2/3/2016: In an unusual and complex personal injury case the Claimant had genuinely presented the psychiatric symptoms described soon after the work accident. In accordance with expert psychiatric opinion he had been suffering from an actionable psychiatric injury, namely hysterical pseudodementia.
  • Rebecca Eve Kellett (a Protected Party by her Litigation Friend Alison Dawn McMahon) v Wigan and District Community Transport [2015] LTL 11/11/2015: Where a solicitor had invoked the services of a medical agency to obtain a report from an expert, it was neither reasonable nor proportionate within the meaning of CPR r.44.4(1) for the agency to charge VAT in respect of the report itself.
  • Michael Dennis Dalton and Others v British Telecommunications PLC [2015] EWHC 616 (QB): Noise-induced hearing loss, sustained by a number of employees as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work, was a “disease” within the meaning of CPR Pt 45 so as to attract a success fee of 62.5 per cent where claims for damages were settled before a trial had commenced.
  • R (on the Application of Susan Savage) (Claimant) v Mansfield District Council (Defendant) and Lindhurst Group (Interested Party) [2015] EWCA Civ 4: Outline planning permission was upheld for a mixed use development near a wood containing substantial breeding populations of nightjar and woodlark. There was a risk that the woodland could be included in a potential special protection area, but that had not been formally proposed and the planning authority had therefore been under no obligation to consult Natural England or accept its advice about that possibility.
  • Mansfield District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2014] EWHC 2167 (Admin): The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had been entitled to claw back part of grants made from the European Regional Development Fund where the local authority receiving the grants had failed to advertise invitations to tender in the way contemplated by the regional development agency’s guidance and the European Union’s national guidance.
  • R (on the Application of Royston Potter) (Claimant) v Amber Valley Borough Council (Defendant) and Mr Michael Woods and Mrs Michael Wood (Interested Parties) [2014] EWHC 888 (Admin): Where a planning board had decided to grant planning permission for a residential development contrary to the advice and recommendation of its own planning officer, it was appropriate to quash that decision because the summary reasons the board gave were insufficient to demonstrate that it had followed the correct legal approach or the reason why it had disagreed with the view of its officer.
  • Jade Hamnett v Essex County Council [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin): The Administrative Division of the High Court did not have jurisdiction to perform a statutory review of two experimental traffic regulation orders, which had the effect of removing disabled parking spaces on a high street, on the basis that they breached the Equality Act 2010 s.29. The clear intention of Parliament was that claims under s.29 “must” be brought in the County Court.
  • R (on the Application of Richard Hayden) (Claimant) v Erewash Borough Council (Respondent) and Simon Kelly (Interested Party) [2013] EWHC 3527 (Admin): A local authority had not erred in granting a householder permission to build an extension. Although his neighbour had concerns about subsidence resulting from the construction work, those concerns could be dealt with through the Building Regulations 2010 and the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
  • Dennis Rye Limited v Bolsover District Council [2013] ACD 95 : [2013] Env LR D8: There had been sufficient evidence for a Crown Court to convict a company on two charges for breaches of an abatement notice by burning waste, including plastics and treated wood which created dark smoke and caused a nuisance to adjoining residential properties.
  • Allsop v Derbyshire Dales District Council [2012] EWHC 3562 (Admin): The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.215 afforded a local planning authority no power to issue a notice requiring a cessation of the use of land which did not contravene Pt III of the Act, and no power to issue a notice which failed to identify the substance of the mischief at which it was directed. A notice issued to a farmer was invalid where it referred to his land’s use but was in fact directed at graffiti on a trailer.
  • Michael Mark Anthony White and Michael Thomas White v South Derbyshire District Council [2013] ACD 37 : [2013] PTSR 536: A local authority could not rely on its own ultra vires act, namely wrongly issuing a caravan site licence, to found a prosecution of the landowner for not having a valid licence.
  • Webb v Environment Agency [2011] QBD (Sweeney J) 5/04/2011: The Environment Agency’s late introduction of a defence under the Water Resources Act 1991 s.165, which meant that court proceedings had to be discontinued in favour of Lands Tribunal proceedings, in which the claimants were largely successful, justified a departure from the usual costs rule under CPR r.38.6 that a Claimant who discontinued proceedings would be liable for the costs of the defendant.
  • David Smith v Countryside Farmers Plc [2010] QBD (Cardiff) (Judge Seys-Llewellyn QC) 11/02/2010: A costs judge had directed himself correctly when putting a receiving party to his election on whether to produce a copy of a conditional fee agreement or to confirm compliance with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 by evidence. Furthermore, it was unacceptable in practice or in principle for a costs judge to scrutinize the terms of a CFA to check that all matters and all terms had been properly included.
  • Amber Valley Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Allan Northcott and Margaret Northcott [2009] EWHC 80 (Admin): A planning inspector had properly considered all relevant and material factors when determining that the conversion of a barn into a residential dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the special landscape area.
  • Treharne and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3222 (QB): The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 could not be extended to found any claim for damages for the failure of the Child Support Agency properly to pursue maintenance assessments.
  • Peter Andrew Avril v Stephen Boultby [2005] CC (Nottingham) (Judge Inglis, District Judge Millard) 14/05/2008: On a detailed assessment of costs in a road traffic accident case, a judge had erred in disallowing a premium incurred in respect of after the event insurance obtained by a Claimant, even where liability for the accident had been admitted by the defendant from the outset of the case.
  • R (on the Application of Corus UK Limited) v Erewash Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2486 (Admin): An inspector’s recommendation that a brickworks site be reinstated into a local housing plan was not unconditional and the local authority was entitled to exclude the site on the basis that the underprovision of housing in the sub-area in which the site was located was offset by borough-wide overprovision of housing.
  • Corus UK Limited v Erewash Borough Council [2006] CP Rep 41 : [2007] 1 P & CR 22: The judge had been entitled to grant a Claimant a three day extension of time under CPR r.3.1(2) for service of a Part 8 claim form to challenge a local authority’s local plan.
  • Corus UK Limited v Erewash Borough Council [2005] EWHC 2821 (Admin): The appropriate procedural rules governing an application for an extension of time for an application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.287 were those contained in CPR r.3.1.
  • Various Claimants v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Limited (in Liquidation) & Royal and Sun Alliance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 783: Where the Court of Appeal was dealing with an appeal and then an appeal ancillary to the main appeal on issues under CPR Part 36, the sealing of the order on the main appeal did not preclude the court considering whether Part 36 orders should be made in favour of three Claimants not previously made party to the Part 36 appeal.
  • Bradley Hollins v H S Russel; Mark Edward Tichband v B Hurdman; Alison Dunn v Helen Ward; Dora May Pratt v Daniel David Michael Bull; John Joseph Worth v James Joseph McKenna [2003] EWCA Civ 718: The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the interpretation of ss.58 and 58A Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and regs.2, 3 and 4 Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 SI 2000/692.
  • Various Claimants v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Limited and Royal and Sun Alliance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 383: Unless a fresh CPR Part 36 offer was made during the appeal proceedings the machinery of Part 36 was not available to the Court of Appeal which would be disinclined to use its discretion to achieve a similar result by reference to a pre-trial Part 36 offer.
  • General Guarantee Finance Limited v Ronald Krajczynski [2002] BPIR 324: An appeal from an order setting aside statutory demands was not an appropriate forum for examining serious triable issues involving the law of estoppel.
  • Paul David Cullen v John Coggins [2000] CA (Civ Div) (Robert Walker LJ, Mance LJ) 8/03/2000: The Defendant was entitled to assume, as a matter of common sense, that a road junction would remain clear when he proceeded past a green traffic light and had not negligently contributed to the cause of the accident between himself and the Claimant, who had driven through a red light to enter the junction. Cases such as this one were decided on their own facts and the court did not consider there was any room for a strict rule to be applied.
  • John Ian Purdy v Philip John Cambran [2000] CP Rep 67; [1999] CPLR 843: When exercising its powers under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court had to seek to give effect to the overriding objective. It followed that when the court was considering under the 1998 Rules whether or not it was just, in accordance with the overriding objective, to strike out a claim, it was not necessary or appropriate to analyse that question by reference to a rigid and overloaded structure which a large body of decision under the former rules had constructed.

Recommendations

“Calm under pressure, with a wide knowledge of litigation costs.”
Legal 500 2017 – Costs

“He is a very good practitioner with a good costs practice.”
Chambers & Partners 2015 – Costs litigation

“His practice covers cases concerning solicitor and client disputes, costs in tribunals and insolvency. Peers note the strong crossover with his personal injury practice. ‘He has been involved in big cases, is forensically very good, and is a very concise advocate.'”
Chambers & Partners 2014 – Costs litigation

“Andrew Hogan of Ropewalk Chambers is lauded for his advocacy, his ability with points of law and the courteous manner in which he conducts himself. Sources make a point of praising this Nottingham-based barrister’s costs work.”
Chambers & Partners – Costs litigation

“The set’s juniors are felt to be ‘in every way as good as its leaders’, with Andrew Hogan considered to be ‘one of the finest’. He is a ‘tenacious and effective tactician’ who is ‘an absolute whiz when it comes to costs.'”
Chambers & Partners – Costs litigation

“Andrew Hogan practises out of Ropewalk Chambers in Nottingham. He has a multidisciplinary practice which takes in personal injury, employment and regulatory matters. ‘Great costs work’, particularly on the advisory side, is a given from this ‘fantastic advocate and super practitioner’, say sources.”
Chambers & Partners – Costs litigation

“Nottingham-based Andrew Hogan retains a thriving practice at Ropewalk Chambers. Sources agree that he is ‘easily one of the best costs litigators you will find in the regions.'”
Chambers & Partners – Costs litigation

“Based in Nottingham, Andrew Hogan has been kept busy at Ropewalk Chambers with enforceability issues. Described as a hidden gem, Hogan is ‘always well prepared, extremely articulate and very easy to work with.'”
Chambers & Partners – Costs litigation

For further information please contact our clerks on:

+44 (0) 115 947 2581

Cases, News & Publications

View More

Location:

Postal address:
Ropewalk Chambers
24, The Ropewalk,
Nottingham, NG1 5EF.

Telephone: +44 (0) 115 947 2581

Fax: +44 (0) 115 947 6532

Document Exchange:
DX: 10060 Nottingham 17

Email: clerks@ropewalk.co.uk

Opening hours: 8:00am to 6:00pm

Out of hours:
Tony Hill – 07850 086097
Alan Odiam – 07771 603929

Portfolio Builder

Close

Select the Expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download Add to portfolio
Portfolio close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to email this list of to a colleague.