3 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
- ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
- COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)
Top Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI "HALLUCINATED" CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
- IT WOULD BE AN "AFFRONT TO JUSTICE" NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS "FINAL" JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
- SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: ITS USE IN A TRIAL ABOUT... SCAFFOLDING
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“The judge observed, that unlike the District Judge, he had the advantage of the later authorities on this issue, since Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch
. The judge reviewed the authorities in some detail, in particular
The decision of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Dixon -v- Radley House Partnership [2016] EWHC 2411 (TCC). (Appropriate fee is determined by reference to the figure stated on the claim form).
Mr Roger ter Haar QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Glenluce Fishing Company Limited -v- Watermota Limited[2016] EWHC 1807 (TCC). (Amendment of statement of value considered by using “traditional” principles in relation to amendment).
The judge also accepted and adopted the observations made by His Honour Judge Goldsmark QC in Wells -v- Wood & Nottinghamshire Council (Lincoln County Court 09/12/2016) (Claim for issued for limitation purposes, regardless of incorrect fee being paid) [A copy of that judgment is available here b78ym721-wells-v-wood-notts-cc-judgment-final]”
Dear Gordon,
Couldn’t the C’s solicitor have amended before service and then done so without need for permission or agreement?
Sean McCormack
Solicitor
Rollingsons Solicitors Ltd | 10 Fetter Lane | London EC4A 1BR
Switch: 020 7611 4848 Facsimile: 020 7611 4849 Direct Dial: 0207 611 4846
http://www.rollingsons.co.uk
He could. That is mentioned in my note of the judgment. “The claimant was not to be penalised for serving promptly and letting the defendant know the case it had to meet. The claimant could have amended, prior to service, without permission and the onus would be on the defendant to set that aside.” In all likelihood the defendant would have attempted to have the amendment set aside and the same issues would have been raised. The judge was anxious that the claimant was not penalised for transparency.