PROVING THINGS 69: SOLICITORS EVIDENCE OF (THEIR OWN) LOSS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT DELAY TOO
This blog often reports on cases where a party fails to appreciate the scope and depth of evidence needed to prove a claim for damages. This issue arose in the judgment today in Hersi & Co Solicitors, R (On the Application…
DEFENDANT IN CASE WITH PROTECTED PARTY ENTITLED TO RESILE FROM “COMPROMISE”: REQUIREMENT FOR COURT APPROVAL NOT A BREACH OF ECHR RIGHTS
In Revill v Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans held that the rule that required a protected party to obtain a court order to approve a proposed settlement remained good law. It did not breach the claimant’s human rights….
ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
I am grateful to barrister Tom Vonberg for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision today in Howlett -v- Ageas [2017] EWCA Civ 1696. Howlett & anr v Davies & anr- jt Final-1. Tom acted for the…
BUNDLES – AGAIN: BORROWING FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT GUIDE
For many years a post on preparing a trial bundle was, by far, the most read post on this blog. I have re-visited the issue recently. It is worthwhile all practitioners having a look at the specific guidance on bundles…
IF YOU WANT YOUR COSTS ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN APPEAL OR INTERLOCUTORY HEARING THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK : OTHERWISE YOU’LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT
Does a successful litigant on an interlocutory issue have a right to have their costs assessed immediately? That was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in Khaira & Ors v Shergill & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1687 . This…
MYTHS ABOUT PROCEDURE: THE DATE FOR SERVICE IS NOT CALCULATED FROM THE DAY THE COURT RECEIVES THE CLAIM FORM: IT IS CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF “ISSUE”
In an earlier post on limitation myths I recounted how I often received phone calls from worried solicitors who feared they had missed a limitation period. The papers had been received by the court within the period, the date of…
BUNDLES: A QUICK REMINDER: SEDLEY’S LAW OF DOCUMENTS STILL APPLIES WITH SURPRISING REGULARITY
Over the past fortnight I have seen every one of Sedley’s Laws of Documents in action. This has prompted me to set out a quick reminder. Firstly of the Practice Direction and secondly of Sedley’s laws themselves. The “Laws” were…
SEARCHING FOR “THE GOLDEN RULE OF PLEADING”: BREVITY, BRER RABBIT AND – GOING TO HELL
It is interesting to note the search term that leads people to this blog. Today I commented on one that led many, many practitioners to a search for the golden rule of pleading. Be warned not all of these replies…
ANOTHER SORRY TALE – FORGING SIGNATURES ON WITNESS STATEMENTS: A “PRECEDENT” WITNESS STATEMENT CAN RARELY BE A GOOD THING
The Law Society Gazette carries an account of a solicitor struck off for “forging” the signature on witness statements. I want to concentrate on the way that the witness statements themselves were produced. This was not dishonest but is worrying….
ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND THE FINAL BILL: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: CLIENT (PARTIALLY) SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL
In Harrison v Eversheds Llp [2017] EWHC 2594 (QB) Mrs Justice Slade allowed, in party, a client’s appeal in relation to estimates of costs and final costs. It is a case that emphasises the importance of giving full information in relation…
BEING A WITNESS IN COURT: “AVOIDING HUMILIATION”: USEFUL LINKS (VIDEOS TOO)
This idea for this post comes from another blog. Pink Tape has a recent post giving parents tips on giving evidence in court. This caused me to look at the assistance available generally. This is one part of the legal…
A LESSON FOR ANYONE DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GO ON – HAVE A BIT OF A DIG: WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC) contains further examples of the dangers of making comments in witness statements. A witness statement is for facts, comments and stage…
LIMITATION MYTHS 10: THE FINAL COUNTDOWN: 9 MYTHS BUSTED AND SOME HELPFUL POINTS
The idea of this series is to be a short, sharp “shock”, just to ensure key issues of limitation are lodged – somewhere – in the busy practitioner’s mind. Here, in the final post in the series, I try to…
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM ABSENT WITNESSES: RIVA PROPERTIES -v- FOSTER AGAIN
I am returning (and not for the last time) to the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). This time on the issue of the inferences that the…
A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS SURVIVAL GUIDE: MANCHESTER 5th DECEMBER 2017: “SCHADENFREUDE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS”
Along with Stephen Grime QC I am talking on the afternoon of the 5th December 2017 in Manchester. “A Clinical Negligence Lawyers Survival Guide” looks at avoiding substantive and procedure problems during the course of a clinical negligence action. Included…
TRAVEL LAW AND LIMITATION: AN UPDATE AND HELPFUL REMINDER
The aim of the series on limitation “myths” is to be succinct and point out dangers. This is only a starting point. Be aware of the dangers – but there can be exceptions. I am grateful to Julian Chamberlayne from…
SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD ON APPEAL: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF LIMITATION HEARING
In Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip upheld a Master’s decision under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Master’s decision that the defendant pay the costs of the issue of limitation was also upheld. THE…
LIMITATION MYTHS 9 (A): A BIT MORE ABOUT AVIATION, AIRPORTS AND HOT AIR BALLOONS: A POINT WORTH REPEATING
What has been interesting in the series on Myths and Limitation has been the response, mainly on Twitter. “That happened to me”, or “I sued someone who missed that point”. This even found its way into the “Halloween for Litigators”…
“YOU ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CFA”: THERE IS NOT MUCH USE IN ATTACKING THE SOURCE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S FUNDING
In an earlier post we looked the judge’s views in relation to witness credibility in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). Here we look at the judge’s view on the defendant’s attack on the…
MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION 9: DISABILITY DOES NOT SUSPEND THE LIMITATION PERIOD: ONCE THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IT CAN’T GET BACK IN
I wrote about this issue recently. It makes sense to include it in this series. This myth considered here is that disability “suspends” a limitation period. This is a safe assumption if a claimant has never had capacity since the…