TIME ESTIMATES: PROBLEMS WHEN THE ESTIMATES ARE TOO SHORT: STILL LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE
I have been searching (so far unsuccessfully) for guidance to litigators and litigants to help provide accurate time estimates. This may well be more of an art than a science. However it is a skill that needs honing. Not only…
WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN? HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN
In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered the impact of a Part 36 offer that had been withdrawn. He overturned an order that the claimant should pay the costs from the date…
ATTENDING A HMCTS REFORM ROADSHOW: “JUSTICE BY SNAPCHAT”?
There have been a series of HMCTS Reform Roadshows throughout the country. These are discussing reforms to courts and tribunals. Discussing “Virtual Hearings”; “Flexible Operating Hours” and “Scheduling and Listing” I attended the Roadshow in Leeds. I made notes. This…
EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION
Another week, another case about service of the claim form. This time the claimant was more successful. In DDM v Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors [2018] EWHC 346 (QB). Mr Justice Foskett allowed an appeal against a Master’s decision setting aside…
WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS
In Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270 the Court of Appeal considered an important issue in relation to Qualified One Costs Shifting. What order should be made when the claimant has QOCS protection against some of…
PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT: THE COURT’S APPROACH WHEN THE COSTS SCHEDULES ARE “EYE-WATERING”
In Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 332 (Comm) Lord Justice Leggatt considered the principles relating to payments on account of costs. In particular the approach the court should take when there were weighty commercial…
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS
I am grateful to my colleague at Hardwicke, Laurence Page, for sending me a transcript of the judgment of District Judge Langley in the case of Wright -v- Rix & Kay Solicitors, Central London County Court, 30/11/2017 (available here Wrighttranscript)….
EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”
There are several passages in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in David John Saunders -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) that highlight a common problem with joint reports. That is the problematic “agenda”. A …
THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: DECLARATIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
The judgment of Master Thornett in Day v Bryant (declaratory relief – costs – QOCS) [2018] EWHC 158 (QB) is an example of a rare case where a defendant, in a personal injury case, obtained a declaration on a counterclaim. It…
AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2018
The judgment yesterday in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 shows how crucial correct service of the claim form can be. There are dozens of examples on this blog of cases where service with the claim form goes wrong. In an…
LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
We looked at the decision in Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16) in an earlier post. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018]…
12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW
Today is all about service of the claim form. Following on from the Supreme Court decision in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 this morning this is a good time to update your knowledge about basic points of procedure. TWELVE…
BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT
It is rare for issues relating to procedure to reach the Supreme Court. The judgment today in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned the issue of correct service of the claim form. The claimant lost the appeal (albeit…
CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON
The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal in Barton -v- Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12. Service by email on a solicitor who had not confirmed they would accept service was not good service. A claimant would not be granted any…
EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE’S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS
I am trespassing into the area of family law to look at decision of Mr Justice Moor in Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam). It is of general interest to civil lawyers because it involves the court considering whether expert…
PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: “ACADEMIC” ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING
In London Borough of Haringey v Simawi [2018] EWHC 290 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklen expressly considered the Overriding Objective when determining whether a human rights issue that could be rendered “academic” should continue to a hearing. “Those rules are directed at…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
ANONYMOUS WITNESSES AND CONFIDENTIALITY CLUBS: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 120 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of anonymous witnesses and confidentiality clubs. He granted six witnesses anonymity. This was subject to the identity of the witnesses being…
INTERPLEADER PROCEEDINGS: FILLING THE GAP IN THE RULES
In Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader – Enforcement) [2018] EWHC 219 (QB) Master McCloud had to look back at a few centuries of jurisprudence in order to find a solution to a very modern problem. What…
LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD
In Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert found that the six year contractual limitation period ran from the date of completion of work and not the date of invoice. A…
