PROVING THINGS 225: PROVING THAT A SIGNATURE WAS FORGED: DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS WERE NEVER SERVED
In Randhawa v Randhawa (Divorce: Decree Absolute, Set Aside, Forgery) [2021] EWFC B96 HHJ Moradifar found that a signature on an acknowledgment of service had been forged. Consequently the decree of divorce that followed was set aside. THE CASE The…
SUING YOUR LAWYER: SOLICITORS NOT NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PASS ON COUNSEL’S VIEWS OR ADVISE ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION
In Mervyn Lambert Plant Ltd & Anor v Knights Solicitors [2022] EWHC 165 (QB) Dan Squires QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, rejected the claimant’s argument that his former solicitors had been negligent in failing to inform him…
10 MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW
Here we look at ten “myths” (that is misconceptions) about limitation that can lead to personal injury litigators getting into difficulties. This is not the first time these issues have been examined on these blog. However these continue to be…
A FINAL COSTS CERTIFICATE IS ESSENTIAL FOR COSTS TO BECOME DUE: THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED OFF…
In Johnston -v- Wackett [2022] EWHC 129 (Ch) Deputy Master Brightwell considered the question of whether costs become payable when a final costs certificate is not obtained. “Even though most paying parties may in practice pay without the need…
THE DANGERS OF DISPUTING COSTS (IT COULD COST YOU OVER £240,000…)
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is also interesting reading in that it gives an insight into the assessment of costs in earlier proceedings. It highlights the dangers and costs of costs proceedings…
WITNESS EVIDENCE IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: CRUCIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT
It is surprising how many clinical negligence cases rest, ultimately, on findings of fact as to what was said. An example can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Watson v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust…
JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SENT TO THE NORTH: LOCAL COURTS ARE BEST…
In Fortt, R (On the Application Of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd [2022] EWHC 152 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham ordered that judicial review proceedings be sent to Manchester rather than heard in London. The judgment emphasises the importance of…
PUTTING A CAP ON THE COSTS OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT: AN UNHAPPY TALE WITH LESSONS TO BE LEARNT
For the second time today I am writing about a case concerning a jointly instructed expert. In Loggie v Loggie [2022] EWFC 2 Mr Justice Mostyn had to determine who should pay the costs of an expert whose final costs…
NO DUTY OF CARE OWED BY A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT (ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE): EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT BEING EXPERTS: MUCH TO READ HERE
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is essential reading for anyone who instructs experts in litigation. It is also essential reading for experts. The judge dismissed a claim in negligence against a…
PROVING THINGS 224: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: THE IMPORTANCE (& LIMITATIONS) OF THE CLAIMANT’S OWN EVIDENCE
The impairment of someone’s ability to earn their living is always a serious matter. There are a number of approaches that the court can take to the award of damages. Anyone representing a claimant should read McRae -v- Chase International…
COURT OF APPEAL ISSUE WARNING AGAINST EXCESSIVE COSTS (INCLUDING THE COSTS OF APPEALS)
In The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 the Court of Appeal were concerned about the costs involved in litigation on what were, essentially, preliminary issues. This included the…
CHANGES TO THE HIGHWAY CODE: WHERE TO FIND THEM AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO LAWYERS (APART FROM THE FACT THAT LAWYERS, WALK, DRIVE AND RIDE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?)
The Highway Code is changing on the 29th January 2022. This has some relevance to lawyers. Here we look at the importance of the Highway Code, the significant changes, with links as to where to find the new rules and…
THE PROFOUND DIFFICULTIES IN REHEARING AN APPLICATION WHERE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS REFUSED: AN “EXCEPTIONAL JURISDICTION”: NUMEROUS BITES OF THE CHERRY NOT EASILY ALLOWED
In Dal v Bicknell & Anor [2022] EWHC 120 (Ch) Mr Justice Edwin Johnson considered the circumstances in which a party, refused permission to appeal, could seek to re-open the decision to refuse permission. The cases in which that can…
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO AN IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AFTER A SPLIT TRIAL: HOWEVER THERE IS AN (8%) STING IN THE TAIL
The judgment of Costs Judge Leonard in ABA v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2022] EWHC B4 (Costs) highlights a point of costs and practice that is easily overlooked. A successful party who is awarded costs in a…
STATEMENTS OF CASE, DRAFTING, DANGERS AND PITFALLS 2022: FORTHCOMING WEBINAR
Recently we have looked at several cases where the importance of proper pleading was emphasises. For instance in Charles Russell Speechlys LLP v Beneficial House (Birmingham) Regeneration LLP [2021] EWHC 3458 (QB) the appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted…
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND: TOWER BLOCKS, FIRE SAFETY AND “FACTS” PLEADED IN THE DEFENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Mulalley & Co. Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 32 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a claimant, seeking to amend its Particulars of Claim by referring to matters pleaded in the defence, was pleading…
WHAT HAPPENS AT A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS OF A TRIAL? ALSO THE COSTS AND INTEREST THAT FOLLOWS A PART 36 OFFER
We have already looked at the judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 in relation to the construction of Part 36 offers. This was…
A PART 36 OFFER CANNOT BE REDUCED BECAUSE OF A DEDUCTIBLE: AN INSURER IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OFFER IT MADE
I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the decision in Denton -v- Ms Amlin Underwriting (County Court at Doncaster 6th August 2021). It relates to an insurer defendant attempting to deduct an excess figure…
THE NEED FOR VARIATION OF THE TONE OF CORRESPONDENCE IN LITIGATION: OUTRAGED OFFENCE AND BEING PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE IS USUALLY OFF KEY
I am grateful to solicitor Richard Harrison for allowing me to reproduce his post on “The importance of tone in litigation”. This blog has looked, many times, at judicial criticism of intemperate correspondence. Richard’s observations here will strike a chord…
PROVING THINGS 223: PROVING A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM (£1,206,053 TO BE EXACT)
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) awarded a claimant £1,206,053) in loss of earnings. The judge found that the approach in Smith -v- Manchester was not an…
PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL RECUSAL CONSIDERED: JUDGE DOES NOT RECALL MEETING A PARTY
There is an interesting issue in relation to recusal in the judgment of Mrs Justice Arbuthnot in Griffiths v Griffiths (Decision on Recusal) [2021] EWHC 3600 (Fam). THE CASE The judge was determining issues relating to access to children….
“DIVIDING THE BILL” WHEN TWO MATTERS PROCEEDED TOGETHER; THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION NEEDED ON COUNSEL’S FEE NOTES & HOURLY RATES: A LOT IN ONE CASE
In R v Barts Health NHS Trust [2022] EWHC B3 (Costs) Costs Judge Rowley considered a number of interesting issues relating to the problem of apportioning costs where two actions had been run alongside each other. There are interesting observations…
DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER
The previous post looked at the rejection of allegations of fundamental dishonesty in Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB). That judgment also contains some observations in relation to several of the medical experts called on behalf of the…
A CLAIMANT IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN THEY DON’T PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT ASKED FOR: JUDGMENT FOR £1,679,406 IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) rejected an argument that a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. Judgment was entered for £1,679.406 instead of a finding of…
PROVING THINGS 222: SPENDING £200,000 IN COSTS OVER 9 INCHES OF LAND: BEYOND THE JUDGE’S COMPREHENSION AS TO HOW THIS GOT SO EXPENSIVE
In Davis & Anor v Winner [2021] EW Misc 23 (CC) the parties between them appear to have spent over £200,000 in costs. This is a dispute over inches of land. It is not surprising that HHJ Mithani QC expressed…
A DEFENDANT MAKES A PART 36 OFFER BUT IT CAN BE A “CLAIMANT’S” PART 36 OFFER WITH ALL THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES: A CASE ABOUT MISSING CASES
The judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 (comm) contains a detailed consideration of several aspects of the law of costs. It is…
YOU CAN’T RAISE A TOTALLY NEW POINT ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL DOES NOT ALLOW A MAJOR CHANGE OF CASE
In London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2022] EWCA Civ 28 the Court of Appeal set out the difficulties for a party that wishes to take a fundamentally new or different point on appeal. This gives rise to major difficulties…
FAILING TO TAKE STEPS IN RELATION TO A VULNERABLE WITNESS RENDERED THE TRIAL UNFAIR: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In S (Vulnerable Party: Fairness Of Proceedings) [2022] EWCA Civ 8 the Court of Appeal set aside a judgment when the court had not appreciated that a key witness was a vulnerable witness and that steps needed to be taken…
WHEN A PARTY FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: THERE IS NO GOOD REASON AND THE PARTY IN DEFAULT PAYS A PRICE…
In the judgment today in Prime London Holdings 11 Ltd v Thurloe Lodge Ltd [2022] EWHC 79 (Ch) Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) considered the appropriate response to a witness statement that failed…
THE GOOD LAW PROJECT JUDGMENT TODAY – TWO PROCEDURAL ISSUES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS & THE COURT’S APPROACH TO UNCHALLENGED WITNESS EVIDENCE
The Court of Appeal judgment today in The Good Law Project, R (On the Application Of) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] EWCA Civ will, no doubt, be subject to much legal, and political, scrutiny. Here I want to…
ACTION STRUCK OUT WHEN CLAIMANT GIVES WRONG ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM
I am grateful to solicitor Hamish Cameron Blackie for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bloom in Conlon -v- Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd (County Court at Luton, 2nd December 2021) where the judge struck out an action…
COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIES TO PART 36 OFFERS: HIGH COURT DECISION
I am grateful to barrister Richard Wilkinson for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Thornett in O’Grady -v- B15 Group Limited [2022] EWHC 67 (QB). The Master decided that Part 36 offers were subject to the doctrine…
PLEADING OF SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE STRUCK OUT: YOU CAN’T MILK OTHER CASES…
In Peter Sharp & Son (a Firm) v GEA Farm Technologies (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 64 (Ch) Deputy Master Raeburn considered issues relating to “similar fact” evidence and made an order preventing a claimant from adducing evidence in relation to other…
CASE STRUCK OUT DUE TO CLAIMANT’S INACTIVITY: YOU CAN’T “WAREHOUSE” A COURT ACTION
In Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court judge) struck out an action on the grounds of the claimant’s delay. The case had been “warehoused” and the claimant had not adduced…
PROVING THINGS 221: THE COURT WILL NOT SPECULATE
In Hirst & Anor v Dunbar & Ors [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC) Mr Justice Eyre highlighted the need for a claimant to prove losses, and expenditure, the court will not speculate on items relating to expenditure. “In my judgement…
GLUTS AND BUNDLES: LOTS OF AUTHORITIES DON’T HELP: “THIS MUST NOT BE REPEATED IN ANY FUTURE COUNTY COURT TRIAL”
I am sure that our eminent housing bloggers and commentators will write about the important substantive judgment in the case of Rosebery Housing Association Ltd v Williams & Anor [2021] EW Misc 22 (CC). However this blog deals with only one…
JUDGES REFUSES TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS WHO HAD “BURIED THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND”
In Vitrition UK Ltd v Caine & Ors [2022] EWHC 51 (Comm) HHJ Davis-White QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, refused the defendants application for relief from sanctions following their failure to comply with an unless order…
AVOIDING PROCEDURAL PITFALLS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th JANUARY 2022
There are a number of cases reported today in relation to service of the claim form and relief from sanctions. This may be an appropriate time to remind people of the webinar on the 20th January 2020 “Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls…
SERVICE WITHOUT A SMILE: CLAIMANTS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: SENDING AN UNSEALED CLAIM FORM IS NOT GOOD SERVICE, THE CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RELY ON CPR 3.10
The first (but probably not the last) case on service of the claim form arrives in January, with the Court of Appeal decision in Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 14. It…
APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENTS 1: MATCH NOT POSTPONED
Issues relating to adjournments are a regular feature of the search terms that lead to this blog. There are two recent cases where questions relating to adjournments were considered, the first we will look at is the judgment of Mr…
SHOULD A RESPONDENT RECEIVE HIS COSTS FOR BEING SENT TO PRISON? JUDGE CONSIDERS ISSUES AFTER CONTEMPT OF COURT HEARING
In Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2022] EWHC 5 (Ch) Lord Justice Nugee considered the question of what costs order should be made after a respondent had been committed to prison for contempt. The applicant had succeeded on some, but…
DOMESTIC BUILDING LITIGATION AND PREVENTING FINANCIAL DISASTER: SUGGESTIONS FROM THE CIRCUIT BENCH
In The Sky’s the Limit Transformations Ltd v Mirza [2022] EWHC 29 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies makes a number of suggestions designed to mitigate the potentially ruinous costs of litigation in relation to domestic building disputes. ” … it would…
AN EXAMPLE OF A TRIAL WITH VULNERABLE WITNESSES: EACH WITNESS GIVEN A CLEAR ALLOCATED TIME TO GIVE THEIR EVIDENCE
This blog has looked, several times, at the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB). It is also worth looking at for the explanation the judge gives as to the steps…
“EACH OF THE CLAIMANTS’ STATEMENTS TENDED TO TAKE THE FORM OF A STANDARD TEMPLATE”: THE PERILS OF IDENTICAL EVIDENCE
It may say a lot about contemporary litigation that the practice of numerous witnesses producing near identical witness statements is so common that I almost decided not to write about it. The practice was considered by HHJ Judge Hodge QC…
LIMITATION, SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: A FAIR TRIAL WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND CLAIMANTS’ ACTION DISMISSED
The previous post looked at the decision in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) in relation to the issue of vicarious liability. However it is important to note that the claimants did not succeed in…
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND SEXUAL ABUSE: THIS IS NOT A TEST OF INTUTION, BUT ONE THAT IS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED
The judgment of Mr Justice Johnson in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) makes for difficult reading. The judge pays tribute to the remarkable men who brought the action, all of whom had been…
CONDUCT AND COSTS: SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT RECOVERS – NOTHING
In European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Ltd v Treon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2866 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles considered issues relating to costs after a defendant had succeeded at trial because the claimant’s action was statute barred. The judge…
CAN LEADING COUNSEL RECOVER THEIR FULL BRIEF FEE WHEN A CASE SETTLES TWO WEEKS BEFORE TRIAL?
In Hankin v Barrington & Ors [2021] EWHC B1 (Costs) Deputy Master Campbell considered the question of whether leading counsel’s brief fee was payable in full (or in part) by the defendant when the brief had been delivered but the…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: 10 MATTERS THAT WILL INCREASE THE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS
Here I want to look at some practical matters which can help a party seeking relief from sanctions. This is guidance on the most prudent steps to take but it should be made clear that there are no easy options….
“WHAT IS THE POINT OF HANDLING A CASE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN FAILING TO PRESENT IT WELL TO THE COURT?”
This may be one of the few blogs that has a category “Trial Bundles”, with dozens of posts on this topic. It remains one of the most searched and read subjects on this site. Here I am revisiting a useful…
You must be logged in to post a comment.