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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.