STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 3: SLEEP
I imagine that every single medical practitioner agrees on the importance of sleep in an individual’s health. It affects both physical and mental well being. Yet lawyers are ranked second amongst the most sleep deprived professions. Studies indicate that lawyers…
COUNTER-SCHEDULES: WORDS OF WISDOM FROM TWITTER
Twitter this afternoon gave rise to a number of interesting discussions about the role of the counter-schedule. I got permission to share some of the contributions. THE START It started with Sarah Pritchard QC looking for ideas for a talk…
BOOK REVIEW: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE MADE CLEAR: NIGEL POOLE QC
Nigel Poole QC has a book published this month “Clinical Negligence Made Clear A Guide for Patients and Professionals”. I have had access to the printed and the digital copy, and I’ve had fun… “If you can’t explain it simply, you…
STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 2: FISH FILES AND HOW TO FILLET THEM
We have looked at “fish files” several times on this blog, and with good reason. A “fish file” is a file that has been left for so long it has started to smell. Consequently the litigator avoids it and it…
A CRI DE COEUR FOR MORE MONEY WON’T GET YOU AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: MASTER EMPHASISES THE NEED FOR HARD EVIDENCE
In RXK v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2751 (QB) Master Cook made some important observations about the quality of evidence needed to obtain an interim order for costs in an ongoing case. (The judgment in X -v-…
WHY PROCEDURAL RULES ARE IMPORTANT (AND LEAD TO SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE): “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN, AND DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
In Paralel Routs Ltd v Fedotov [2019] EWHC 2656 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) emphasised the importance of procedural rules. There are quite a few interesting observations in relation to disclosure, redaction, civil…
“NOT ALL JUDGES OR COUNSEL ARE HUMOURLESS AUTOMATONS”: NO JUDICIAL BIAS WHEN EVIDENCE GIVEN BY WAY OF A SONG
It is not often that appeals over planning decisions make their way to this blog. It must be even rarer for such appeals to consider the question and appropriateness of humour (and song) in the judicial process. That is what…
QOCS IN “MIXED “CASES: THE COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKS
In the judgment today in Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1724 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of QOCS in “mixed cases”. The judgment requires careful reading. Generally speaking all personal…
THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE
The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements. The titles are often prompted by elements…
CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS (YET AGAIN…): COMMITTAL ORDER SET ASIDE BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED
Yet another example of the difficulties arising in civil committal proceedings arises in the Court of Appeal decision today in O (Committal: Legal Representation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1721. Legal representation, if requested, is essential if committal proceedings are to be valid….
GILHAM -v- MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: A REMINDER OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS: “MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE WERE LIKELY”
The Supreme Court judgment yesterday in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 provides a landmark ruling on the issue that judges are “workers” and entitled to the protection of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There will be many…
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE LEADS TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED
In Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd [2019] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused a claimant’s appeal against a finding that the defendant was not negligent. He granted the defendant relief from sanctions and allowed an appeal against a…
REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: “THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF”
In Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn overturned a decision refusing relief from sanctions. The Appellant had made payments by cheque rather than by bank transfer. It is also an important example of the pitfalls caused…
STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 1: “OWN YOUR MISTAKES”
Today I am speaking at the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society annual conference on the topic of “Avoiding a Breakdown – Helping Your Clients by Helping Yourself”. I thought this would be a good day to start a new series on…
DENTON APPLIED TO OUT OF TIME APPLICATION IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: THE APPLICANT STAYS IN JAIL
In Lakatamia v SU [2019] EWCA Civ 1626 the Court of Appeal refused an application for permission to appeal out of time in a case where the applicant had been committed to prison for contempt. “Hysaj establishes that the…
PROVING THINGS 165: CLAIMANT IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE PROVES NEGLIGENCE BUT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION
In Bell v Bedford Hospital NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 2704 (QB) the claimant established clinical negligence but failed to prove causation. THE CASE The claimant suffered a major stroke that left her with significant permanent disabilities. She claimed that…
THE “BAD SINGING” CASE GETS TWO ENCORES: JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON KEY ISSUES
I wrote about the first instance decision in Kogan v Martin & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 here. The Court of Appeal have ordered a retrial in the case. There are important observations about the role of the judge in…
PROVING THINGS 164: THE NEED FOR A CAR FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS NOT SELF PROVING AND THE COURT WILL NOT INFER SUCH A NEED.
In Hussain v EUI Ltd [2019] EWHC 2647 (QB) Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed a claimant’s appeal in relation to the assessment of damages. “Need for social and domestic purposes is not self-proving and, in this case, cannot simply be inferred”…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…
One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14. Experts have the…
WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE
An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts. The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…