One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.4K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS: HOW DOES THE JUDGE KNOW IT IS THE WITNESS’S OWN WORDS?
- FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: A TALE OF THREE CITIES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LATE BUT THE SOLICITORS “DID NOTHING WRONG AT ALL”
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 68: COURT OF APPEAL HOLDS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED AMENDMENTS: THE PLEADINGS WERE “INCOHERENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INSUFFICIENTLY PARTICULARISED”
- COST BITES 381: DOES THE COURT HAVE POWER TO ORDER SECURITY FOR COSTS IN RELATION TO AN ASSESSMENT? SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS ABOUT THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT ALONG THE WAY…
- SERVICE POINTS 38: THE CLAIMANT SERVES AT THE WRONG ADDRESS BUT THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPLY IN TIME (A CLASSIC STORY)
Top Posts
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS: HOW DOES THE JUDGE KNOW IT IS THE WITNESS'S OWN WORDS?
- SERVICE POINTS 38: THE CLAIMANT SERVES AT THE WRONG ADDRESS BUT THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPLY IN TIME (A CLASSIC STORY)
- COST BITES 380: "ALWAYS CHOOSE A COSTS LAWYER FOR EXPERT LEGAL COSTS ADVICE": GUIDANCE FROM THE SRA
- EXPERT WATCH 45: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE AND "GENUINE EXPERIENCE IN THE SUBJECT AREA"
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 68: COURT OF APPEAL HOLDS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED AMENDMENTS: THE PLEADINGS WERE "INCOHERENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INSUFFICIENTLY PARTICULARISED"
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Whilst this may be so, it is still concerning that the decision on how to interpret this statutory instrument is being made by the MoJ / HMCTS.
In any event, what one seeks on an infant settlement is the payment of money. The wording of CPR Part 21.10(2)(a) refers to a “CLAIM by or on behalf of or against a child or protected party”. This can be a claim for anything – an injunction, money, damages, declaratory relief.
It seems to me that this is what the claim is for and the proceedings are begun as part of that claim, albeit that the only procedural step sought is approval of the settlement.
The Civil Proceedings Fees Order refers to a fee payable “on starting proceedings to recover a sum of money”, and in the alternative to a fee payable “on starting proceedings for the recovery of land” and in the further altenative to “on starting proceedings for any other remedy”.
So, the HMCTS argument must go that seeking approval of a settlement is not a claim to recover a sum of money (although it is, since that is what is ultimately being sought). But surely it is not a claim for any other “remedy” either, since approval of a settlement to pay money is not a “remedy” – it is approving of the already agreed “remedy”.
I think I should get out more …