CORONAVIRUS – A USEFUL CASE: MASTER ALLOWS PARTY TO VARY DIRECTIONS BY CONSENT BY 56 DAYS
7BR’s website carries an interesting report from Adam Korn of a judgment today where Master Davison made an order extending the amount of time the parties can agree to vary directions. This was directly because of potential difficulties arising out…
THE DANGERS OF MAKING ORDERS FOR SPLIT TRIALS: DECISION AT TRIAL SET ASIDE DUE TO A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY
The judgment of Mr Justice Murray today in Sharn Panesar Ltd v Pistachios In The Park Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 194 (QB) illustrates some of the dangers of holding a trial on a preliminary issue. In this case a…
WITNESS STATEMENTS, WITNESS EVIDENCE AND SELF-PROTECTION FOR THE LAWYER
Every few years I repeat advice given in relation to the need for “self-protection” when drafting witness statements. This is often caused by something I have seen in practice, questions I am asked, or a transcript of a case. The…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – A ROUND UP OF THE ROUND UPS: WHAT TO FRET ABOUT AND WHAT NOT TO FRET ABOUT…
There have been a series of annual reviews on key topics throughout December. To round off the year it seemed a good idea to provide a reminder of them all and put the links in one place 2019 AND CIVIL…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (1): BUNDLES
I am sorry to be starting the annual review of procedure so early, but December is a busy month and there is a lot to fit in. I’ll start with the subject that has constantly drawn the most readers to…
MAKING FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONE: THE MACKENZIE PERPLEX
There is one aspect of the judgement in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 that requires a little more attention. That is is the question of how parties, faced with the absence of documents and where…
DEFENDANTS – WAKE UP, SERIOUSLY: A “VERY RELAXED” ATTITUDE TO THE RULES WILL COST YOUR CLIENTS DEAR: APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE REFUSED: REFUSAL CONFIRMED ON APPEAL
In Joan Angela Kember v (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard John Kember, Deceased And On Her Own Behalf And On Behalf of His Dependants) [2019] EWHC 2297 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert upheld a refusal to grant a…
APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT’S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE
In Gray v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) Mr Justice Lambert dismissed the claimant’s appeal from cost budgeting decisions. The judgment contains important observations about the nature of cost budgeting hearings and appeals on…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
BUNDLES: CIVIL CASES IN THE FAMILY DIVISION: COMPLY WITH THE RULES
In Re XY [2019] EWHC 1610 (Fam) Mr Justice Williams made it clear that all cases heard in the Family Division are subject to the Division rules relating to bundles. “For applications such as those under the Inheritance (Provision for…
SHOULD THE COURT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL ON LIMITATION? THE FUTILITY OF CITING DECIDED CASES: “SCRIPTURE FROM WHICH THE DEVIL MAY FREELY QUOTE”
In Hutson v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 1608 (QB) Mr Justice Turner refused the defendant’s application for a split trial on limitation in a group action. The judgment makes it clear that there is no “burden” on any…
LITIGATION THAT WAS “TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION”: THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE CUT THEIR CASE TO SUIT THEIR CLOTH: (SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES TOO)
In White Winston Select Asset Funds LLC & Anor v Mahon & Anor [2019] EWHC 1381 (Ch) HHJ Simon Barker QC had some telling words about the manner in which the claimant had conducted litigation. What is remarkable about this…
ADVICE FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND AROUND THE WORLD: “CROWD SOURCED” GUIDANCE: THANKS FOR ALL THE TWEETS
There have been a number of occasions when I have put contributions from people on Twitter on this blog. This is usually in response to specific questions and issues raised. People have been generous in their time and Advice. I…
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…