TODAY IS LOVE LITIGATING LAWYERS DAY – SERIOUSLY
August 31st is Love Litigating Lawyers Day. In America it has been celebrated widely (well there was a lot of comment on Twitter). Clearly this is clearly something that every sensible reader of this blog wants to encourage. THE…
DISCONTINUING CLAIMANT STILL HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS: CLAIMANT CANNOT PASS RISKS ON TO ANOTHER DEFENDANT
In BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Ltd v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd [2018] EWHC 1222 (TCC) Mrs Justice Jefford refused the claimant’s application for an order that it should not have to pay the costs of a defendant it discontinued against. …
SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER ON COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE: A REDETERMINATION OF THE MATTER AND NOT SUBJECT TO TIBBLES PRINCIPLES
There is a short passage in the judgment today of Master Clark in Massimo Osti SRL v Global Design And Innovation Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2263 (Ch) that provides an important reminder of the relevant principles that apply when a…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE
We are looking, for the second time, at the Court of Appeal decision yesterday in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. That part of the judgment that deals with findings of fact at trial and appeals against…
DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN
I am grateful to barrister Luka Krsljanin for sending me a copy of hte Court of Appeal decision today in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. The Court rejected an argument that the trial judge…
PROVING THINGS 124: “PUT BLUNTLY: THAT EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE ON AN INJUNCTION APPLICATION
In Jahangiri v St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2278 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin observed that witness evidence put forward by the defendant was far from adequate. “The Court is best assisted when the evidence of someone who…
SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD: PURGING CONTEMPT OF COURT
There is a section in the Court of Appeal judgment in James v James [2018] EWCA Civ 1982 that is of some importance. It relates to the question of whether a party should appeal an order for contempt or apply to…
THE CORRECT FEE ON A PART 8 APPLICATION: DON’T LET THE COURT STAFF MAKE YOU HAND OVER MONEY FOR NOTHING
A Twitter conversation this morning came up with the old chestnut of court staff informing a solicitor that the court fee to be paid on a Part 8 application for approval was identical to that on a Part 7 claim. …
THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” CONSIDERED: WHEN NON-AUTHORISED PERSONS ATTEMPT TO ELBOW IN ON LITIGATION
We are looking for the third (and final) time at the judgment in Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). The judge considered the meaning of “conduct of litigation” as defined by the Legal Services Act…
WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT
I am looking again at the judgment in Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). Here we look at the crucial question of who signed the statement of truth. A difficult concept when a claim form…
SKELETON ARGUMENTS: A ROUND UP: GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING: JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS (& THERE ARE PLENTY): EXAMPLES ONLINE & SANCTIONS FOR LATE SERVICE
Recent online discussions about skeleton arguments started with a search term that led to this blog “how long should a skeleton argument be?” This was probably a good time to provide a review highlighting all the posts about skeleton arguments…
SHOULD PROCEEDINGS BE STRUCK OUT WHEN THEY ARE ISSUED AND SERVED BY AN UNAUTHORISED ENTITY? TWO CASES THAT AID THE CLAIMANT
The judgment of HHJ Worster In Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham) is available on Lawtel. There are several procedural aspects of that case that are of general interest and which I will look at over…
PROVING THINGS 123: THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANT WHO COULD NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD BEEN INJURED
We looked at the case of Kavak v FMC – HHJ Pearce Manchester CC 24.04.18) in an earlier post, primarily in the context of re-allocation. However that case provides a clear illustration of a failure to prove a basic element of…
THE JUDGE’S ROLE WHEN A PARTY DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL: SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED WHEN PROCEEDINGS ISSUED 22 YEARS AFTER ASSAULTS
In the judgment today in LXA & Anor v Willcox [2018] EWHC 2256 (QB) His Honour Judge Robinson (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) had to consider two issues: (i) the appropriate role of the judge when a…
CHANGING TRACK AFTER TRIAL: CLAIM RE-ALLOCATED FROM FAST TRACK TO SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: CLAIMANT CONFINED TO SMALL CLAIM TRACK COSTS
I am grateful to Michael Cordeux from Plexus Law for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour JudgePearce, sitting in the Manchester County Court, on the 9th April 2018. It is an example of how a case…
DON’T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT
There is another aspect of the judgment in Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward & Anor [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch) that needs highlighting. The lesson here is clear: you cannot delay service of the claim form on the grounds that you…
APPEAL ON FINDING OF FACT ALLOWED: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN THE CREDIT HIRE WAR
I am grateful to Lee Kipling from Winns, solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of HH Judge Gosnell in Morris -v- MCE Insurance Company Ltd.( Morris v MCE Insurance (23.07.18) (Jud) (2)). A case where the judge allowed…
NO DUTY ON A PARTY TO INFORM AN OPPOSING PARTY THEY ARE MAKING AN ERROR: THE APPEAL JUDGMENT IN PHOENIX IN FULL:
I have already noted that the judgment at first instance in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) has been overturned. The full appeal judgment is now available on BAILLI at [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch), a decision of HH…
LIMITATION: COURT DOES NOT EXERCISE SECTION 33 IN CASE CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE: A CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE PUT ON THE SHELF
This is the second post of the day on Section 33. In Murray v Devenish & Ors (Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) [2018] EWHC 1895 (QB) the claimant was not successful. Mr Justice Nicol held that the claimant’s delay…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 IN A FATAL DISEASE CASE: CASE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AFTER 25 YEAR DELAY
In Pearce & Ors v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy & Ors [2018] EWHC 2009 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the principles relating to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and granted an application where…
FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY TO MONTREAL CONVENTION CLAIMS: DECISION FROM LIVERPOOL
I am grateful to Katie Wheeler from Compass Costs for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Baldwin (Regional Costs Judge) in McKendry -v- British Airways PLC (hearing 16th May 2018 – judgment received today, available here McKendry)….
THE KIMATHI DECISION 5: REVIEW OF SECTION 33 PRINCIPLES: WHY LIMITATION WASN’T HEARD FIRST
This is the fifth in the series that looks at the decision of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The judgment contains a useful review and survey of Section 33 and…
A MONTREAL CONVENTION CLAIM DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PORTAL: FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY
I am grateful to Peter Bland from Scott Rees, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the decision in Mead -v- British Airways Plc*. Mead v BA template – Final 15 August 2018 (1)This considers the issue of whether a…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL
Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything. Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”. Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…
CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED
In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert. The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 4: THE APPROACH TO WITNESS EVIDENCE: MEMORIES ARE FLUID AND MALLEABLE: SOME KEY POINTS ON GESTMIN
This is the fourth in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The trial judge was looking at evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years earlier,…
PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE: A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE
Many cases rest on the credibility of witnesses. A detailed examination can be found in the judgment of HH Judge Saggerson (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Hibberd-Little v Carlton [2018] EWHC 1787 (QB). There are issues here in relation…
YOU’VE STARTED SO YOU’LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER
In Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley & Anor [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB) Master Davison set aside the claimant’s notice of discontinuance made after reading the defendant’s additional written submissions after a hearing. The notice of discontinuance was viewed as “tactical….
DEBARRED PARTY CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE AT TRIAL: WHAT ROLE CAN A DEBARRED PARTY PLAY AT TRIAL?
In Kliers v Schmerler & Anor [2018] EWHC 1350 (Ch) Mr M H Rosen QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the defendant’s application that it be allowed to cross-examine the claimant even after it had been debarred from…
LAWYERS (& OTHERS) – WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN
In the judgment today in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email marked “Legally Privileged and Confidential” did not have the protection of professional privilege. The judgment also shows…
DEALING WITH THE ARCH ENEMY: EVERY LITIGATOR’S BUGBEAR
Some of the ideas for this blog come from the legal community on Twitter. This evening there was a discussion about the virtues of instructions that arrive in numerous emails versus the problematic (and usually broken) arch lever file. Last…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 3: THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS, STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRES AND THE USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS
This is the third in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at the evidence gathering process, in particular the use of questionnaires and the…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, ACCURATE EVIDENCE AND A REMARKABLE CHANGE OF ACCOUNT BY THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS
The judgment in Britchford v Staffordshire And Stoke-On-Trent Partnership NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2109 (QB) is another example of a clinical negligence claim that rested on the accuracy of medical evidence. A feature of the case is that the claimant did…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 2: TRANSLATORS ON TRIAL: ALSO A LOOK AT THE GUIDANCE ON TRANSLATING WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the second in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at issues relating to the translators. It shows the way in which the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DATE OF ISSUE FOR LIMITATION” PURPOSES AND THE “DATE OF ISSUE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE
There were a number of search terms which led people to this blog today that related to the date of service and date of issue. The confusion is, perhaps, easy to understand The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date…
RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS
The Court of Appeal decision in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 is in relation to procedure in the Employment Tribunal. However there are two points in the judgment that are of general importance to civil practitioners. …
THE KIMATHI DECISION 1: PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE
The judgment in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) came after a trial that commenced in May 2016 and lasted until June 2018. It contained a whole range of issues in relation to procedure…
You must be logged in to post a comment.