CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 56: ADVISING ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”
The difficulties facing those giving advice about litigation is summed up in a judgment of Sedley LJ “Clients, I know, want two inconsistent things. They want confident advice on which they can act, and they want cautionary advice about the…
ANOTHER POST ON THE AUTHORITIES BUNDLE: THE SUPREME COURT SAY THEY SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: GUIDANCE FROM THE NICE LAWYERS OF TWITTER
Earlier today I reported on a comment from the Court of Appeal that it did not help for authorities to be placed in alphabetical order. I commented on the absence of clear guidance. Here we look at the views from…
PROVING THINGS 160: DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED: COURT CAN DIRECT THAT EXTRA EVIDENCE BE FILED
In Hendry v Hendry & Ors [2019] EWHC 1976 (Ch) Master Shuman refused the claimant’s application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. THE CASE The claimant was married…
A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY
The Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing today in Swift -v- Carpenter. Looking at the footage at 1.04 you can see a comment by the court in relation to the bundle of authorities. THE BUNDLE WAS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER…
You must be logged in to post a comment.