CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different. There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 37: THE EVER SO HUMBLE REPLY: CANNOT BE USED TO BRING A NEW CLAIM
The closing passages of the judgment in Donovan & Anor v Grainmarket Asset Management LLP [2019] EWHC 1023 (QB) dealt with the Claimant’s reply. It is worthwhile looking at the rules and case law relating to this aspect of civil procedure. …
A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE
Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously acting for…
FRESH EYES NOT A GOOD REASON FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND: COURT REFUSED CLAIMANT’S LATE APPLICATION TO RE-CAST ITS CASE
In Donovan & Anor v Grainmarket Asset Management LLP [2019] EWHC 1023 (QB) Martin Griffiths QC, sitting as a High Court judge, disallowed a late application to amend. It is another example of an application being made shortly before trial,…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
You must be logged in to post a comment.