Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2016 » November

PART 36 CONSEQUENCES AND A FIXED COSTS REGIME: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MEET?

November 30, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Part 36, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Phonographic Performance Ltd -v- Raymond Hagan [2016] EWHC 3076 (IPEC) Judge Hacon considered the interaction between a fixed costs regime and Part 36. KEY POINTS The fixed cost rules in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court…

SECOND APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS (THIS TIME)

November 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Uncategorized

In Holyoake -v- Candy [2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee decided that a second application for security for costs was not an abuse of process.  The judgment reviews the law relating to second applications and abuse in detail. It…

PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A "NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE"

November 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Uncategorized, Witness statements

It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive…

INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

November 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized

The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog.  Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: THE BEHRENS' EFFECT

November 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Uncategorized

His Honour Judge Behrens, the resident Chancery judge in Leeds, retires tomorrow. This led me to consider the contribution he has made to civil procedure. JOHN BEHRENS AT THE BAR I could begin by telling of the  meticulous neatness of…

THE DEAD CAN'T SUE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

November 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Group Litigation Orders, Parties to actions, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Kimathi & Ors -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart reviewed the principles in relation to bringing an action on behalf of a deceased party.  It is an important reminder of some very…

LATE AMENDMENT OF PARTICULARS OF CLAIM NOT PERMITTED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

November 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Amendment, Applications, Limitation, Uncategorized

In a judgment today  in Henderson -v- Dorset Healthcare University Foundation NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 3032 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application to amend the Particulars of Claim.  The judgment covers a number of points. In particular it…

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS IN PATENT CASES: SHOULD BE SHORT AND FAIR

November 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Uncategorized

In his judgment today in Merck Sharp and Dhome Limited -v- Shionig & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold made some observations about the cross-examination of expert witnesses. These related to experts in patent cases, they are…

JUDGE USES COSTS BUDGET TO ASSESS COSTS AT THE END OF A TRIAL: THE RELEVANCE OF THE BUDGET & WHEN SHOULD THE COURT GO OUTSIDE IT?

November 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Uncategorized

In Sony Communications International AB -v- SSH Communications Security Corporation [2016] EWHC 2985 (Pat) Mr Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) used the costs budget to carry out an assessment of the costs at the end…

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE REFUSED EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: ORDERS ARE ORDERS

November 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In Eaglesham -v- Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 3011 (QB) Mrs Justice Andrews DBE refused the defendant’s application for an extension of time for compliance with an unless order. The Defence was struck out. “A party who faces genuine difficulties…

WITNESS STATEMENTS & DISCLOSURE: OMISSIONS MEAN THAT CASE FAILS AT SECOND HURDLE AND HAS TO GO BACK TO THE START

November 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Disclosure, Uncategorized, Witness statements

S  When a proponent of proportionate litigation, such as Jackson L.J., orders a retrial in a case where the judgment was for £4,449 the case merits examination. In Knowles -v- Watson [2016] EWCA Civ 1122 a re-trial was ordered because…

PROPORTIONATE COST ORDERS WHEN COSTS ARE £8 MILLION AND £10 MILLION APIECE: HIGH COURT DECISION

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Uncategorized

We have already looked at the decision in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496 (TCC) in relation to the question of proportionality. However the judgment contains much more of interest in relation to costs. It provides an…

PROPORTIONALITY DOES NOT AFFECT A PROPORTIONATE COSTS ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Proportionality, Uncategorized

There are many aspects of the judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496 (TCC) that are of interest to readers of this blog.  Here I want to explore the judgment in relation to proportionality. “The…

THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can…

THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)

November 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Uncategorized

The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…

PROVING THINGS 38: PROVING INABILITY TO PAY ON A SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATION

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Security for Costs, Uncategorized, Witness statements

A party opposing an application for security costs sometimes has to argue that the ordering of security would “stifle” a genuine claim.  This means giving evidence as to that party’s inability to pay.  This test was considered by Mr Richard…

WITNESS STATEMENT OF OPINION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AND WAS NOT ADMITTED

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There is a telling passage in the judgment of Richard Salter QC in St Vincent European General Partner Ltd -v- Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm). A statement of bare opinion, with nothing to support it, was not admitted in evidence….

QADER 2: REMAINING PROBLEMS AND ISSUES: THE CONTINUING DEBATE

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

The post yesterday on the Qader decision has led to a large number of comments.  These are easy to overlook.  I have placed the comments here since these outline the issues that remain unresolved. I have added some sub-headings, but…

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS...

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Book Review, Expert evidence, Experts, Uncategorized

There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where…

PROVING THINGS 37: ROBIN HOOD RIDES AGAIN: AN APPROACH TO DAMAGES THAT WAS "FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT THROUGHOUT"

November 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized, Witness statements

I have written before about the decision in relation to the the decision in the liquidation in the Robin Hood Centre.  In the judgment at first instance the Registrar held that the claim against former directors had been vastly over-stated…

1 2 3 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,040 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • ITS OFFICIAL – THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT “WAREHOUSING” AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY
  • UNDERSTANDING THE LAW RELATING TO FATAL ACCIDENTS: WEBINAR 8th FEBRUARY 2023
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • ITS OFFICIAL - THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT "WAREHOUSING" AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE
  • NO DUTY ON A PARTY TO INFORM AN OPPOSING PARTY THEY ARE MAKING AN ERROR: THE APPEAL JUDGMENT IN PHOENIX IN FULL:

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin