COST BITES 20: COURT MAKES A THIRD PARTY COSTS ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MISCONDUCT OF LITIGATION: PARTIES GET THEIR JUST DESSERTS
In Ventures Food Ltd v Little Dessert Shop Limited [2022] EWHC 2437 (Ch) HHJ Richard Williams (sitting as a High Court judge) made a third party costs order on the basis of litigation misconduct by those who controlled a limited…
WHY APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM IS A DANGEROUS BUSINESS: A CASE TODAY AND SOME REMINDERS
The judgment of HHJ Hodge KC in Harrington Scott Ltd v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Ltd (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – Solicitors – Loss of opportunity to pursue claim to trial – Damages – Defendant’s application to strike out and for summary judgment)…
COST BITES 19: JUDGE EXERCISES DISCRETION TO ALLOW CLAIMANT QOCS PROTECTION IN A “MIXED” CLAIM
In Wokingham Borough Council v Arshad [2022] EWHC 2419 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne considered whether QOCS protection should be applied to a claimant who had brought a claim for personal injury damages, in addition to other claims. The judge held…
COST BITES 18: APPROPRIATE CHARGING RATES WHEN A GRADE C IS CHARGED AT NOTHING: THE NEED FOR A “BLENDED” APPROACH
There are several interesting aspects to the judgment of Mr Justice Miles in Eurohome UK Mortgages 2007-1 Plc v Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch & Anor [2022] EWHC 2408 (Ch). One issue was the appropriate hourly rate when a grade…
TRANSFERRING A CASE FROM THE PROTOCOL TO PART 7: THE APPROPRIATE TEST CONSIDERED
I am grateful to Jamie Carpenter KC for sending me a copy of the judgment in The London Borough of Islington -v- Borous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242, a The case was looked at yesterday. Here I want to consider the…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: INSURERS SHOULD KNOW THE RULES, AND CAN’T COMPLAIN WHEN THEY ARE APPLIED
In The London Borough of Islington -v- Borous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242 the Court of Appeal rejected two appeals from defendants in relation to car hire/replacement charges where damages were considered within the Road Traffic Protocol. The judgment contains a detailed…
AVOIDING LIMITATION PROBLEMS IN PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 29th SEPTEMBER 2022
On the 29th September 2022 I am presenting a webinar “Avoiding Limitation Problems”. This deals with the major issues relating to limitation in personal injury actions. Booking details are available here. THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBINAR Basic limitation periods,…
“LITIGATION SHOULD BE SEEN AS A LAST RESORT, NOT A FIRST PORT OF CALL”: WORDS OF WISDOM FROM THE EAT
In Clark & Ors v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd & Anor (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2022] EAT 143 HHJ James Tayler made some observations in relation to the Early Conciliation scheme that exists in employment tribunals and construction of the rules. He…
THE KING’S BENCH GUIDE: WHERE TO FIND THE CHANGES
The Queen’s Bench guide has now been changed to the King’s Bench guide. There do not appear to be any substantive changes to the text. The text can be found here. COMPARE AND CONTRAST There is a comparison of…
COST BITES 17: FAILURE TO ENGAGE WITH CRITICISM OF WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS: FAILING TO ENGAGE ON WITNESS STATEMENT ISSUES CAN BE EXPENSIVE
There is another judgment in the case of McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) that is worth noting. The claimant’s failure…
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PARTY WAS NOT “NIT PICKING”
In McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) considered the appropriate response where a party fails to comply with the requirements for…
THE COURT WILL NOT READILY RE-OPEN THE AMBIT OF ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE: DECISION OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
I am grateful to Aidan Robertson KC for sending me a copy of the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, in Sportradar AG -v- Football Dataco Limited [2022] CAT 37 a copy of which can be…
AVOIDING PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE: WEBINAR 23rd SEPTEMBER 2022
In case anyone hasn’t noticed a lot of (perhaps the vast majority) of posts on this blog relate to procedural issues and problems that litigators have run into, or taken advantage of. On the 23rd September 2022 I am presenting…
THE COMPUTATION OF TIME AND THE BANK HOLIDAY ON MONDAY: ONE OTHER THING
Another point has arisen in relation the procedural impact of the Bank Holiday on Monday. The courts will be closed. CPR 2.8(5) therefore comes into effect. Any act that should have been done on Monday is effective if, instead, it…
EXPERT WITNESSES SHOULD KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND CAN PROPERLY CHANGE THEIR VIEW AS THE CASE PROGRESSES
In A Local Authority v AA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2321 (Fam) Mrs Justice Lieven rejected criticism of an expert witness who had changed their view throughout the course of the case. Experts must keep an open mind and it…
THE COMPUTATION OF TIME UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND THE BANK HOLIDAY ON MONDAY
The Government announced that Monday the 19th September 2022 will be a national bank holiday. It is important to remember that this could have some consequences where a court order requires something to be done in 5 days or less….
EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE COURTS IN 2022 – REVIEW AND GUIDANCE: DON’T LET THESE PROBLEMS HAPPEN TO YOU: WEBINAR 14th DECEMBER 2022
As the two posts on this blog yesterday showed there appears to be a never ending problem with expert evidence. This year there have been over a dozen cases about expert evidence reported on this blog alone, all of them…
EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE DO NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF ANONYMITY: MATTERS OF FREE SPEECH ARE IN ISSUE
The previous post dealt with the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106, in particular the critique of the expert evidence. In a subsequent judgment Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022]…
COURT CONSIDERS EVIDENCE OF EXPERT WHO “HAD NOT READ THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, NOT FULLY READ THE LITERATURE… AND HAD MIS-READ AND MISINTERPRETED THE RELEVANT RESEARCH”
A powerful critique of the conduct of an expert witness can be found in the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106. A medical expert was found to have fallen considerably…
ASSESSMENT OF A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT BILL OF COSTS: THREE IMPORTANT POINTS CONSIDERED: CLAIMANT’S CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR STRUCK OUT
In Sweeney v Wise Solicitors Ltd [2022] EWHC 2314 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley struck out a claimant’s application for an an assessment of costs against their former solicitor. The action seeking an assessment of costs was issued out of time…
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PARENTS AN ADJOURNMENT: COURT OF APPEAL ORDERS A REHEARING
In A (A Child : Withdrawal of Treatment: Legal Representation) [2022] EWCA Civ 1221 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a refusal to grant an adjournment. It was held that an adjournment should have been granted and a…
BEREAVEMENT: USEFUL LINKS
I had not planned to blog today. However some social media sites make it clear that a lot of people are having difficulties dealing with bereavement. The queen’s death has led to immense pain and sadness in itself and also…
FAILURES ON DISCLOSURE LEAD TO TWO YEAR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL DATE (AND INDEMNITY COSTS)
We looked earlier at the decision in Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2024 (Pat) Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, on the issue of costs. That costs decision arose because of major failings by the…
AVOIDING UNDER-SETTLEMENT: A GUIDE FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS: WEBINAR 20th SEPTEMBER 2022
A webinar on “avoiding undersettlement” for personal injury lawyers is being held on the 20th September 2022. Booking details are available here. “We go back through your claim in fine detail and if we find that your previous solicitor…
THE COURT OF APPEAL, STRIKING OUT AND PLEADING THE CASE PROPERLY: PARTICULARS OF CLAIM SHOULD HELP NOT HINDER
There has already been much publicity surrounding the Court of Appeal decision in HXA v Surrey County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1196. The Court of Appeal overturned decisions where actions were struck out, holding that the issues in question should…
“CIVIL JUSTICE IS BROKEN”: A SAD, BUT SYMPTOMATIC, TALE IN TWO TWEETS
Sometimes brevity is the key. We see this in two tweets yesterday, reprinted with permission. “Jonathan @TempleBrief Civil Justice is broken – again. Tomorrow’s CCMC for a vet with severe suicidal PTSD who lacks capacity which was postponed in Jan…
COST BITES 16: THE CARE NEEDED WHEN QUANTIFYING “COSTS THROWN AWAY”: 45% OF CLAIMED COSTS TO BE PAID ON ACCOUNT
In Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2024 (Pat) Mrs Justice Joanna Smith considered the amount that should be ordered on account when costs were “thrown away” after an action was adjourned shortly before…
EXPERT WAIVED PRIVILEGE WHEN MENTIONING ANOTHER REPORT IN HIS REPORT: “TRIAL BY AMBUSH IS NO LONGER THE ORDER OF THE DAY”
We are looking again at the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) in Pickett v Balkind [2022] EWHC 2226 (TCC) . Again it is in relation to an issue relating to experts. An expert had…
COURT REFUSES TO GRANT RESTRICTIONS ON CLAIMANT’S ACCESS TO FORMER SOLICITOR’S FILE: NOT A CASE OF LIEN ON ME
In Ellis v John Hodge Solicitors (a firm) [2022] EWHC 2284 (Comm) His Honour Judge Pearce refused to place any restrictions on the disclosure of a litigation file to the claimant. The claimant was bringing an action alleging professional negligence…
PROVING THINGS 237: FAILURE TO PROVE A NUISANCE: NO LOSS OF INCOME WHEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EARN IT
The judgment of HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Ray v Windrush Riverside Properties Ltd [2022] EWHC 2210 (TCC) gives two examples relevant to the “Proving Things” series. Firstly the claimant failed to prove a nuisance….
CLAIMANT COULD NOT OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF A LETTER FROM AN EXPERT: AN APPARENT BREACH OF THE INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE
In Pickett v Balkind [2022] EWHC 2226 (TCC) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application for an injunction to prevent the defendant relying on the contents of a letter from the claimant’s expert. That…
You must be logged in to post a comment.