“THEY LOST”: THE DANGERS OF OVERCONFIDENCE IN CORRESPONDENCE
“Never write anything you will be embarrassed by the court reading” is an essential piece of advice for all lawyers (and one I suspect we have all, occasionally, breached). An example can be seen in the opening lines of the…
PART 36, FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIMS AND PRE-ACTION SETTLEMENT: A POINT FOR BOTH CLAIMANTS AND DEFENDANTS TO WATCH
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Kore v Brocklebank [2019] EWHC 3491 (QB) raises some interesting issues in relation to Part 36 and fatal accident claims. It means that both claimants and defendants will have to take considerable care…
THE COURT WILL NOT READILY IMPLY SANCTIONS INTO ORDERS THAT DO NOT EXPRESSLY CONTAIN SANCTIONS: AN EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR LITIGATORS
In Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors [2019] EWHC 3342 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh held that a party did not require relief from sanctions when it failed to comply with a court order that did not impose a…
APPEALING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT A JAMBOREE: APPELLANT HAS TO STATE WHAT THEY ARE APPEALING AND HEARING IS CONFINED TO THOSE MATTERS
In PME v The Scout Association [2019] EWHC 3421 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart upheld the decision of Master Leonard in relation to the scope of an appeal from a costs officer. “The consequences of the Appellant’s case are wholly undesirable….
WITNESS EVIDENCE AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: TO WHAT EXTENT IS “HYPOTHETICAL” EVIDENCE FROM DOCTORS ADMISSIBLE?
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in AB v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 3542 (QB), provides an important lessons for those who draft witness statements, particularly on behalf of defendants in clinical negligence cases. The question is…
You must be logged in to post a comment.