TRYING TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT’S REPORT: WHEN DO THE DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY?
In Global Horizons Corporation -v- Gray [2019] EWHC 1132 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold considered the question of when the Denton principles apply to service of a “supplementary” medical report. “… the question of whether an application for permission to…
DEFENDANT CAN ONLY RESPOND TO THE CASE AS PLEADED: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANTS’ ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE NEW ISSUES
There are two judgments on BAILLI this morning in the Glaxosmithkline case where the judge has resisted the claimants’ attempts to widen the scope of their case beyond the pleaded case and the issues set out in a Group Litigation…
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…
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…
WITNESS BUNDLES: TAKE THEM AWAY AT THE END OF THE TRIAL – OR ELSE
This has been a week dominated by bundles. To end the week the Bar Council has sent out a joint notice from HMCTS on removal of court bundles. This provides a major incentive to ensure that bundles are, in fact,…
CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)
I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual. This part…
LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT’S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)
One specific aspect of the judgment in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) that needs emphasising is the duty the case places on a litigant’s lawyers to monitor the conduct of an expert and…
BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU
This is a far less exciting case than the headline suggests, however it is the first case I have seen about the impact of Brexit on civil procedure (albeit indirectly). In Canary Wharf (Bp4) T1 Ltd & Ors v European Medicines…
UNDERSTANDING THE CODED LANGUAGE OF THE LEGAL DIRECTORIES: HUMBLEBRAGS AND BEYOND
This if the time of year that several legal directories are published. It leads to an inevitable pattern of behaviour. Thanks to law lecturer John Bates we can all now understand the coded language of the legal directory. THE PATTERN…
CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO? PROCEEDINGS NOT DELAYED BECAUSE THERE ARE PENDING APPEALS
In Sberbank of Russia v The OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan [2018] EWHC 2777 (Comm)Mr Justice Bryan had to consider whether to adjourn a case management conference pending appeals in other cases. The judge considered the overriding objective and held that…
VERY LATE CHANGE FROM PART 8 TO PART 7: NUANCED CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE TCC
There is an interesting piece of case management in the judgment of Recorder Andrew Singer QC (sitting as a Judge of the Technology and Construction Court) in Ealing Care Alliance Ltd v London Borough of Ealing [2018] EWHC 2630 (TCC). …
ADVISING ON LITIGATION RISKS 1: YOU CAN BE BELIEVED AS A WITNESS AND STILL LOSE YOUR CASE
Earlier posts have looked at the concept of “litigation risks”. This is something we are all aware of as practising lawyers. We advise on those risks on a daily basis. However very little is written about this. This is the…
THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of the list of issues. This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…
APPLICATION FOR SPLIT TRIAL FAILS TO FLOAT THE MASTER’S BOAT
The judgment in Howard & Ors v Chelsea Yacht And Boat Company Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1118 (Ch) provides a useful “cut out and keep” summary of the principles relating to applications for a split trial. “questions of case…
PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW
I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents. This is what happened…
DELAY IN GETTING TO TRIAL – AND ITS NOT THE COURT’S FAULT: COUNSEL’S AVAILABILITY AND DELAYS – A REMINDER OF THE JIGSAW PROBLEM…
There is often much criticism about the length of time it takes to obtain a trial date. The observations of Mr Justice Fraser in Dacy Building Services Ltd v IDM Properties LLP [2018] EWHC 178 (TCC) indicate that it is not…
LITIGANTS IN PERSON: SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW AS EVERYBODY ELSE (BUT CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT)
The judgment in Reynard v Fox [2018] EWHC 443 (Ch) has already been written about in the legal press. Indeed it bristles with procedural issues, I want to concentrate on the issue of the treatment of litigants in person. THE…
PARTIES MUST OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR A HEARING OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: (MORE ON LENGTHY SKELETON ARGUMENTS)
In Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 320 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans considered several important issues of procedure. Firstly the need for parties to obtain an order for a hearing on a preliminary issue rather than simply turning up on…
EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE’S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS
I am trespassing into the area of family law to look at decision of Mr Justice Moor in Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam). It is of general interest to civil lawyers because it involves the court considering whether expert…
PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: “ACADEMIC” ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING
In London Borough of Haringey v Simawi [2018] EWHC 290 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklen expressly considered the Overriding Objective when determining whether a human rights issue that could be rendered “academic” should continue to a hearing. “Those rules are directed at…