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…