TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD BEEN FLUSHED OUT AND WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPEAL

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD BEEN FLUSHED OUT AND WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPEAL

March 10, 2020 · by · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Witness statements

In Roberts v Kesson & Anor [2020] EWHC 521 (QB) Mr Justice Jay allowed a defendant’s appeal and held that the trial judge should have found the claimant to be fundamentally dishonest.   The fact that the claimant had been “flushed…

OUT OF TIME APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS UNDERLYING MERITS: DENTON CONSIDERED

OUT OF TIME APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS UNDERLYING MERITS: DENTON CONSIDERED

March 10, 2020 · by · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

For the second time in two days I am writing about a relief from sanctions case where the court took into account the merits of the underlying case.  Yesterday relief was refused because the court held that the case had…

THAT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" AND A DENIAL IN A DEFENCE: THE KEY CASES CONSIDERED

THAT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL IN A DEFENCE: THE KEY CASES CONSIDERED

March 10, 2020 · by · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

The discussion yesterday of the decision in Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB) gives rise to review  cases on pleading a defence, in particular the  important distinction between a “denial” and a “non-admission”. It is…