COSTS AGAINST NON-PARTIES: COSTS ORDER NOT MADE AGAINST DIRECTOR
When is it appropriate to make an order against a director personally? This issue was considered in Housemaker Services Ltd -v- Cole [2017] EWHC 924 (Ch) by HHJ Paul Mattews (sitting as a High Court Judge). The judge declined to…
INTEREST ON DAMAGES AT 8% (AND THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT MATTERS): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION CONSIDERED
In Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 the Court of Appeal decided that the appropriate rate for interest on damages was 8% from the date of breach. It is not often that questions of interest on damages are…
WHEN THE ASSETS DISAPPEAR FROM A JUDGEMENT DEBTOR: POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLORED
The first rule of Law School is (or should be) “don’t sue anyone who doesn’t have the cash to pay”. The most meritorious case coupled with the most astute legal team is going to get blood out of a stone….
PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: NOT GRANTED WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS TO SEEK DETAILS OF DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE COVER
In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd-v- Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) Mr Justice Jefford refused an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy. There is an interesting discussion of the scope of pre-action disclosure and the interrelationship…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED IN GROUP LITIGATION CASE: THE “THIRD STAGE” IN DENTON CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
In the judgment today in Kamathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 939 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart refused an application for relief from sanctions. The Denton principles were considered in detail in the context of a late application…
OPENING LINES OF A JUDGMENT: IT STARTED WITH A TWEET: PAGING DOCTOR FREUD
The opening line of a judgment is often a good guide as to what it to follow. For a few days there has been some, occasionally heated, discussion, as to the best opening lines of a judicial pronouncement. THE TWITTER…
BOUNDARIES, BORDERS AND COSTS: IF YOU LEAVE THE ISSUE OF COSTS TO THE JUDGE YOU MAY NOT GET THE ANSWER YOU WANT
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Powles -v- Reeves [2016] EWCA Civ 1375 shows the dangers of not being able to agree the principle of who should pay the costs of litigation. It shows the dangers of just…
PROVING THINGS 61: MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: FACEBOOK ENTRIES AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY
Facebook and social media play an increasingly important part in litigation. We have looked at several cases where social media has played a critical part in the assessment of witness credibility. Facebook played a part of the judgment today of…
PRESSING THE WRONG BUTTON: THE PERILS OF EMAIL “REPLY ALL” IN LITIGATION (OR ARBITRATION)
Many, if not all, of us will have made some errors with emails on some occasion. There is a danger, however, when this happens in litigation. This can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Popplewell in T -v-…
NOTES FROM A BELEAGUERED BENCH: THE IRON FIST AND NO VELVET GLOVER
There is a section on this blog which has links to posts and articles on procedure. Usually I am content to post the link and lead to it readers to look at it themselves. The article by Peter Glover in…
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND APPEAL NOTICE AND PARTICULARS AT A LATE STAGE NOT ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
I am grateful to Jill Greenfield from Field Fisher for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal transcript in Howe -v- Motor Insurers Bureau (CA 8th February 2017). This is a judgment refusing permission to amend and for…
MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A “TIME LIMITED” OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER
There may be tactical advantages to making a “time limited” offer, or withdrawing a Part 36 offer after 21 days. However this can backfire badly. We have already looked at the decision in Thakkar -v- Singh [2017] EWCA 117 in…
MERRIX NOT BEING APPEALED (BUT HARRISON IS – WATCH THIS SPACE)
The decision in Merrix -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB) is not being appealed by the defendant. The rationale is, apparently, that the defendant did not want to risk losing the listing of the appeal in Harrison…
INTEREST ON AWARD NOT AUTOMATIC: A DECISION WHERE NO INTEREST WAS AWARDED
The question of when, and whether, interest should be awarded is one of these issues in litigation that receives little coverage. In Pinfold -v- Ansell [2017] EWHC 889 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke decided not to award interest at all. It…
MEDIATION AND LITIGATION: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF IGNORING OFFERS TO MEDIATE
This blog reports regularly on cases where the courts have highlighted the advantages of mediation and the dangers of rejecting an offer to mediate. The latest note of cautious comes from the judgment of Lord Justice Jackson in Thakkar -v-…
BILL OF £101,677.21 AND THE CLAIMANT ENDS UP WITH £2,515.60: MISCONDUCT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
I am grateful to Justin Edwards of BLM solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Whalan in Jago -v-Whitbread a decision of Master Whalan. A copy of that case is attached here ( 2016.10.05 – Approved Judgment)….
FILING FORM H: WHEN DOES A CASE HAVE A VALUE OF “LESS THAN £50,000”? A POINT TO WATCH
There are now several formats for Form H. The “short” one page version is now used in cases where the value is between £25,000 and “less than £50,000″. Some judges are interpreting this strictly to read between £25,000 and £49,999”….
CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: STILL A MAJOR PROBLEM: PROCEDURAL ERRORS ARE “INEVITABLE”
We have had graphic examples recently of cases where committal proceedings in civil, or family, proceedings have gone badly wrong. In LL -v- Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237, the Court of Appeal held that the procedure adopted…
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…)
There has already been some interesting debate on Twitter about one aspect of the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that has not made the headlines. Dominic Regan observed that the case is another example…
DELAY, DENTON, APPEALS AND CROSS-APPEALS: EXTENSION OF TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
In Pinisetty -v-Manikonda [2017] EWHC 838 (QB) Mr Justice Langstaff considered an issue relating to an appeal (and cross-appeal) being out of time. Although the judgment on this issue is largely academic (the appeal failed in any event), it contains…