RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT AGAIN: MCTEAR CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] EWHC 722 (Ch) was looked at briefly in an earlier post in relation to the number of cases cited to the Court. Here we look at the substantive decision in relation to applications…
THE COURTS SHOULD NOT MAKE PEREMPTORY ORDERS LIGHTLY: PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION –V- ZULFIKAR MASTERS CONSIDERED
The fact that relief from sanctions is now more difficult emphasises the principle that courts should not make peremptory orders lightly. The case of Porter Capital –v- Zulfikar (19/3/1014) only on Lawtel at present) is a case to point. THE…
MITCHELL CRITERIA AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS
There is a discussion of the Mitchell criteria in the context of setting aside a default judgment in the case of Mole -v- Hunter [2014] EWHC 658 QB. (Tugendhat J). THE FACTS Judgment in default had been entered on a…
MITCHELL CASE IN THE NEWS AGAIN: THIS TIME ON NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE
Despite the costs order upheld by the Court of Appeal the Mitchell libel action continues. There is a report of a decision today by Tugendhat in relation to an application for disclosure [2014] EWHC 879 (QB). It concerned an…
LORD JACKSON'S RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
The Civil Justice Council review of the Jackson reforms received 70 papers in total. The only ones generally available, to the best of my knowledge, are the ones available on this blog and the paper provided by Lord Jackson which…
LAW SOCIETY CIVIL JUSTICE CONFERENCE: 30th APRIL 2014: THE PLACE TO BE
I am one of the speakers at The Law Society Civil Justice Section Conference on the 30th April 2014, details of which can be found here. “Venue:The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL Cost:From free Overview CPD Hours…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST "INNOCENT" PARTY
The case of Lakatamia Shipping -v- Nobu Su [2014] EWHC 796 has been dealt with before on this blog in relation to a successful application for relief from sanctions. The judge’s comments on the costs of the application are now available…
WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 1: SANCTIONS: WHAT WAS SAID & WHAT HAS HAPPENED?
There are lots of events coming up dealing with the first anniversary of the Jackson reforms. It would be an opportune time to look back at the Jackson Report itself to remind us what it said on certain key issues….
SO CPR 3.9 HAS BEEN MADE EASIER? McTEAR COULD BRING A TEAR TO THE EYE
One of the avowed aims of amending CPR 3.9 was to make the judge’s job simpler. The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] demonstrates that it has precisely the opposite effect. THE JACKSON REPORT ON THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS In…
READ LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY: VIEWS OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS ON MITCHELL
Anyone interested in how the Mitchell principles should be construed and may develop should read Litigation Futures today and its report of the Civil Justice Council of the 24th March 2014. CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS In…
WEBINARS ON WITNESS STATEMENTS AFTER JACKSON & 10 LIMITATION MYTHS THAT EVERY PI PRACTITIONER SHOULD KNOW
I have filmed two webinars for CLC which are available on demand and cover two important issues – witness statements and limitation. WITNESS STATEMENTS AFTER JACKSON Deals with both procedure, layout and content in the drafting of witness statements. Further…
MITCHELL PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN TAX TRIBUNAL
In Mr and Mrs B -v- Revenue & Customs the First Tier tribunal (tax) considered whether the Mitchell principles applied to permissions to appeal out of time in the first-tier tribunal tax chamber. “The law 42. There is no guidance in…
COULD CPR 3.10 BE THE LITIGATORS NEW BEST FRIEND? THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL PETROLEUM CONSIDERED (AND THEY ARE ENORMOUS)
In Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) Popplewell held that the provisions of CPR 3.10 meant that service of the particulars of claim by e-mail could be good service and the default judgment entered thereafter…
SERVICE BY E-MAIL: IMPORTANT DECISION IN INTEGRAL -v- SCU FINANZ ON CPR 3.10
There is an important discussion of the effect of serving by e-mail by Popplewell J in the case of Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz SA [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) The decision relates to serving process by electronic…
WAIVING PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING LEGAL ADVICE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CASE IN POINT
A case reported on Lawtel this morning demonstrates the dangers of referring to legal advice in witness statements. The decision of Males J in Mid-East Sales -v- Engineering & Trading Co [2014] EWHC 892 (Comm) was made on 14/03/2004. THE…
SURVIVING MITCHELL 13: READ KERRY'S RULES OF SURVIVAL
At the end of the previous post on Surviving Mitchell I wrote that there were important issues of law firm management which needed to be addressed and that, perhaps, Kerry Underwood would be better placed than me to address them….
WHAT WOULD THE SUPREME COURT THINK ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO PROCEDURE? CLUES FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL?
The Mitchell case was not appealed. Practitioners have no clue as to the approach of the Supreme Court to matters of procedure. However a decision of the Privy Council on the 3rd March makes interesting reading as to potential construction…
USE OF EXTERNAL REPORTS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: HOYLE -v- ROGERS CONSIDERED
Can a party rely on an external report that contains opinion evidence? The Court of Appeal considered this question in a case reported today Hoyle -v- Rogers[2014] EWCA Civ 257. Important distinctions have to be drawn between admissibility and weight…
NEW COUNTY COURT RULES: EXTENSION OF EQUITY JURISDICTION TO £350,000
On the 22nd April 2014 the County Court Equity jurisdiction is extended to £350,000. A copy of the relevant Statutory Instrument is attached uksi_20140503_en (1) and there is a link here.
DUNHILL -v- TASKER: SUPREME COURT DECISION GIVEN TODAY: PROTECTED PARTY CANNOT SETTLE CLAIM WITHOUT APPROVAL. SUPREME COURT DECISION ATTACHED
I have attached a copy of the Supreme Court decision in Dunhill -v- Tasker which was given today UKSC_2012_0136_Judgment (1). The conclusion is that a compromise reached by a protected party cannot be valid unless approved by the court. …