FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY WHEN THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF CONSENT ORDER: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL IN THE COUNTY COURT
I am grateful to Sam Hayman and Tom Jenkinson from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Wulkwik in Miss Seyi Adelekun -v- Mrs Siu Lai Ho. (Central London County Court 18/10/2018). A…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS SERIES 20: A RECAP
The purpose of this series is to provide short and basic summaries of some of the key points of civil procedure. Often a post is due to an observation made in a recent case, a comment on Twitter or a…
COSTS WHERE A PARTY SUES A NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS: DEFENDANTS ORDERED TO PAY SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS: HIGH COURT APPEAL
I am grateful to Thomas Riis-Bristow, Associate Solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Lavender in McDermott -v- Inhealth Limited (19/07/2018), This deals with the issue of the appropriate costs order when…
COURT STEPS OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) guards its fixed costs regime very jealously. Prior to the decision in Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2728 there appears to have only been one previous…
THE JUDGE’S ROLE WHEN A PARTY DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL: SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED WHEN PROCEEDINGS ISSUED 22 YEARS AFTER ASSAULTS
In the judgment today in LXA & Anor v Willcox [2018] EWHC 2256 (QB) His Honour Judge Robinson (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) had to consider two issues: (i) the appropriate role of the judge when a…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS
In Hertel & Anor v Saunders & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an offer made was not a valid Part 36 offer. It was held that a Part 36 offer had to be…
WITNESSES, SEARCHES, CREDIBILITY AND… BEDS: AN AVERAGE DAY IN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT: NAILING JELLY TO THE WALL
The judgment in Birlea Furniture Ltd v Platinum Enterprise (UK) Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 26 (IPEC) has some interesting lessons for all litigators. Not least the need to be on guard in relation to search terms and search criteria. …
SEEKING AN EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN YOU ARE 9 1/2 YEARS LATE: THE IMPORTANCE OF A SOLICITOR KEEPING A RECORD
Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides that a claim under the Act should normally be brought within six months of the date on which representation is taken out. An action brought at a…
PROVING THINGS 78: AN ABSENT WITNESS IS NEVER GOING TO HELP: DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TAKE CONTEMPORARY STATEMENTS LEADS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES
In a talk today to a group of clinical negligence lawyers I discussed the issue of evidence, and “missing” documents and witnesses. In particular the relevance of Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet Co Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 on the…
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH AND LEGAL HYPOCRISY: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM DOCTORS?
Lawyers, particularly litigators, are infinitely wise. This is because we specialise in hindsight: “Why didn’t you do that?” ; “You should have done that”; “Why wasn’t that written down?” This is particularly acute in clinical negligence cases where one profession…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 3: SKELETON ARGUMENTS, PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION: AN ABSOLUTE GOLDMINE
This blog has many posts that record cases where judges have been critical of the contents (and usually length) of skeleton arguments. A remedy for most of these issues has been available since 2004. Gray’s Inn prepared a paper “Skeleton…
ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW: THAT DIFFICULT SECOND SERIES 1: LEARNING FROM THE MASTERS
Last year I wrote a series on Advocacy the Judge’s view. There were ten posts which culled guidance from judges around the world. I had no plans to write another. However I read the article by Master David Cook “Advocacy…
PROVING THINGS 70: CAUSATION HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND WILL NOT BE INFERRED: PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION
Most of the cases looked at in the Proving Things series have, inevitably, been first instance decisions. To mark the 70th in the series we are looking at a Privy Council decision, Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd v Ryan…
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM ABSENT WITNESSES: RIVA PROPERTIES -v- FOSTER AGAIN
I am returning (and not for the last time) to the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). This time on the issue of the inferences that the…
MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION 9: DISABILITY DOES NOT SUSPEND THE LIMITATION PERIOD: ONCE THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IT CAN’T GET BACK IN
I wrote about this issue recently. It makes sense to include it in this series. This myth considered here is that disability “suspends” a limitation period. This is a safe assumption if a claimant has never had capacity since the…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHEN PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS “ABSURD” – THIS IS NO SMALL BEER
I am grateful to barrister Simon Mills for sending me a copy of the judgment of Judge Waksman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in BHL -v- Leumi ABL Limited [2017] EWHC 1871 (QB). Here I look at…
YOU OFFERED ME £100,000: I’VE ACCEPTED £15,000- OH AND I WANT MY COSTS: THE DANGERS OF NOT NEGOTIATING AND WHY THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS
I tried to summarise the judgment of Mr Justice Mann in Jordan -v- MGN Limited [2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch) and I found it difficult. Every word of the judgment is important. It shows, at least, a very insouciant, approach by the…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: SAYING “I AGREE WITH HIM” IS HARDLY GOOD PRACTICE
Large number of litigants pay large amounts of money to their lawyers to draft witness statements. This blog often documents the problems caused by witness statements that are simply inadequate. The issues of inadequate witness statements is seen again in…
JUDGES, FACT FINDING AND GRENFELL: THE CRUCIAL QUESTION – IS THIS JUDGE A GOOD FACT FINDER
If you write a blog on civil procedure it is not hard to steer a course away from the issues of the day. However there is one issue of the day that is hard to ignore. The criticisms of the…
DOCUMENTS, AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIONS: A TIMELY REMINDER OF THE PROVISIONS OF CPR 32.19
I said in the previous post that there are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Jones -v- Oven [2017] EWHC 1647 (Ch). One of those reasons is that it contains…
