CASE NOT STRUCK OUT AFTER A FOUR YEAR DELAY: ALTERNATIVE “SANCTION” ORDERED INSTEAD
In Alba Exotic Fruit SH PK v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. [2019] EWHC 1779 (Comm) HHJ Rawlings considered the appropriate sanction where there had been a four year delay by the claimant in pursuing an action. This case is…
A SECOND – IDENTICAL – APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE
In Lambert v Forest of Dean District Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 1763 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen rejected an application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. An identical application had been made earlier and struck out…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53A: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES: ALI -v-CHANNEL 5
Shortly after I completed the post on Part 36 offers after the costs budget has been confined to court fees Professor Dominic Regan reminded me that there is another example in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC…
TWO SHORT TWEETS THAT SUM UP THE STATE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION IN 2019
In the civil courts we don’t have someone like the Secret Barrister who exposes, carefully, clearly and meticulously, the shortcomings in the justice system. However two tweets from yesterday seem to me to exemplify the current state of court administration….
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES
This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…
“A BIT OF A SHORT BALL”: STATING THE JUDGE’S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS
There is an interesting discussion as to Judicial bias in the judgment of Mrs Justice Theis in X v Y (Permission to Appeal) [2019] EWHC 1713 (Fam). “The interjections by the judge during the hearing should be viewed not as…
THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITOR IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: IDEAS TAKEN FROM THE SECRET BARRISTER
There was a tweet yesterday from someone (a non-lawyer) asserting that personal injury lawyers did not need to know the law. His purpose, I suspect, was to lead on to an argument that the work could be done by someone…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 52: THE REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: TO REPLY OR NOT TO REPLY – THAT IS THE QUESTION
Here we take a quick look at the rules and practice directions in relation to filing a Reply and Defence to a Counterclaim. In particular claimants should be very aware of the fact that a defendant can apply to enter…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those…
THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH
In Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) Mr Justice Henry Carr refused an appeal against the making of a “Bullock” order in relation to the costs of a fourth defendant. The claimant, however, was not successful…
MEMORY IS FLUID AND MALLEABLE: CENTRAL TO THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL: GESTMIN CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
Another aspect of the judgment in Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) was the trial depended largely on the judge’s assessment of the evidence of the claimant. There was reference, unsurprisingly, to Gestmin. “Memory is fluid…
WHEN THE EXPERT WITNESS ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE AN “ADVOCATE”: WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
In LIC Telecommunications SARL & Anor v VTB Capital Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 1747 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder made some telling observations in relation to the expert evidence. THE CASE The application concerned whether certain proceedings were duly authorised….
I DON’T WANT YOUR SOLICITORS TO ACT FOR YOU: CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION REFUSED
In Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd & Anor v Product Specialities Inc (t/a Final Touch) & Anor [2019] EWHC 1733 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon dismissed the claimant’s application for an injunction to prevent the defendants’ solicitors acting for them. THE CASE The…
“CHARACTER EVIDENCE” IN CIVIL CASES: NOT ALLOWED (AND NOT MUCH USE ANYWAY)
In Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee made some observations about evidence that was, in part, “character evidence”. THE CASE The claimant brought an action seeking damages after being advised to invest in…
PART 36 OFFER WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ONE AND DEFENDANT HAD TO PAY COSTS
In Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1669 (QB) Mr Justice Knowles rejected the defendant’s argument that a Part 36 offer meant that she did not have to pay costs. THE CASE The claimant succeeded in an action for misuse of…
LATEST EDITION OF THE GUIDE TO FATAL ACCIDENTS: AVAILABLE NOW
There is, I suppose, no point in having a blog if you can’t tell people about your own books. The 4th edition of the Guide to Fatal Accidents is out and in (at least one) shop window. As well as…
BULLYING AT WORK: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? CONTRIBUTIONS FROM TWITTER
The earlier post dealt with useful links for dealing with bullying at work. Some people on Twitter also started to contribute. Additional contributions welcome, on Twitter or in the comments section to this blog. Mary Aspinall-Miles A topic that I…
PUTTING AN END TO BULLYING IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION: USEFUL LINKS
I was sad to read a Tweet from a practising barrister earlier today. The barrister tweets anonymously (and thus candidly). They describe a terrible situation of bullying within the legal profession and their decision to “bite back”. This led me…
INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: REASONS FOR REFUSING PERMISSION NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE
I wrote on the judgment in I – interim payment of costs. in an earlier post . I subsequently wrote that the defendant had been refused permission to appeal. The reasons are available on the Switalskis website, here. ” it seems entirely…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
RULE CHANGES (109): ELECTRONIC FILING, INCURRED COSTS AND THE CCMC, SMALL CLAIM HEARINGS IN PRIVATE
We are now on the 109th update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The three points I want to look at in particular are: mandatory electronic filing in the QBD; the costs of the CCMC being clearly categorised as incurred costs;…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 49: THE CASE SUMMARY: THE RULES, SOME GUIDANCE AND AN EXAMPLE
A search term arrived on this blog today “how do I prepare a case summary for a civil litigation case”. A Case Summary should be prepared in virtually every Multi Track case. Very little is written about it. THE RULES…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 48: AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE IS A REHEARING AND NOT A REVIEW (& NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE TIBBLES CRITERIA GETTING ITS CLAWS INTO THE CASE EITHER)
One point that arose from the Court of Appeal decision in Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 contains observations which indicate that it is easy to lose sight of a basic point in relation to orders…
You must be logged in to post a comment.