DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL
The Immigration Upper Tribunal does not appear to recognise some of the basic principles of civil evidence and appellate jurisdiction. Certainly this is the impression you get when reading the judgment of Lord Justice Davis in Palash v Secretary of…
ALLOCATION TO LEVEL OF JUDGE : “FAME” DOESN’T MATTER – THE TIME IT WILL TAKE TO OBTAIN A HEARING DOES
In Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh held that the time it would take to obtain a hearing date is a factor in relation to which judge the matter would be allocated to. The Master also…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW
In a discussion about the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on Twitter today someone asked if “Notices to Admit Facts” were still available, they had not seen one for a long time. The rules still permit parties to…
tWENTY YEARS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES: ALL THAT TIME AND THEY HAVE MADE FEW FRIENDS
I have already done a post on the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on the 26th April. In an effort to find supporters I tried again. The Civil Procedure Rules, it appears, has very few friends… …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different. There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…
A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE
Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously acting for…
WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: THE DUTY OF FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE – A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT
There is an interesting discussion of the duty to give full and fair disclosure in the judgment of HHJ Klein (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3163 (Ch). …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”
In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of “litigation wishful thinking”. Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…
FIXED COSTS, CASES OVER £25,000, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BASKET OF CASES
In Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB)Mr Justice Stewart considered the relevant criteria to be applied when a claimant argued that fixed costs should not be applied to a case that had started in the portal but was settled…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…
FIXED COSTS WHEN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SETTLES FOR MORE THAN £25,000: “NEW RULES” TO BE APPLIED AND FIXED COSTS APPLY
I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sephton QC in Lovatt -v- Lew Diecastings Ltd (County Court in Manchester, 4th December 2018). Lovatt v LEW Diecastings Ltd…
ELECTRONIC FILING IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION: “LONG OVERDUE MODERNISATION”
You can read the Lord Justice’s speech on the launch of Electronic Filing in the Queen’s Bench Division by following the link here. “It will enable parties to issue claims and applications with ease. Pleadings and other court documents will…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE: SERVICE AT “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS” FAILS: SERVICE BASED ON COMPANIES ACT SUCCEEDS
Cases on the last known address for service seem to come along like buses – a few at at time. The issue was considered by Mr Richard Salter QC (setting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Idemia…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36 : WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROPOSED DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE
A search term that arrived on this blog earlier today asked “how to you sue a dead person?” The basic answer is that you can’t. You have to sue their executors or administrators. The problem arises when probate has not…
ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COURT FEES SENT TO COVENTRY
I am grateful to Michael Fletcher from Glaisyers Solicitors LLP for sending me a copy of a note of a judgment from Coventy County Court yesterday in Cook -v- Malcolm Nicholls Limited. It is a case concerning whether the claimant…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY
The question of witness credibility is often the central issue of most cases that get to trial. Surprisingly it is a matter that barely features in legal education. A knowledge of the factors that a judge will take into account…
TWENTY YEARS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES (AND 107 SERIES OF AMENDMENTS): A CHANCE TO REMINISCE, CRITICISE, SHARE EXPERIENCES…
This month sees the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules coming into force. This is a good time to invite practitioners (and judges if they are so minded) to look back at the old rule and the “new” rules…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DANGERS OF SERVING AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS (2019)
It is difficult for a month, sometimes a week, to pass without there being a service of the claim form case. The issue of service was central to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Brayshaw -v- Partners of…
MORE ON THE GREAT BUNDLE TAKEAWAY DEBACLE: A “DIFFICULT” QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR FAMILY LAWYERS
There has been a large amount of comments on the previous posts in relation to taking away of bundles after trial. For family lawyers there is an even greater problem. The “joint notice” from HMCTS endorsed by the Bar Council…