ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL
We see a familiar story in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC). The witness statements of the claimant…
PROCEDURAL DEFAULTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: ADJOURNMENTS OF TRIALS AND APPARENT BIAS
I first looked at the judgment in Saunders v Bristol Magistrates Court [2022] EWHC 2544 (Admin) because my attention was drawn towards the sub-heading “Procedural Defaults”. There were defaults. However this facts of this matter are important in themselves. …
RECENT CASES ON LOSS OF EARNINGS: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 21st NOVEMBER 2022
I am presenting a webinar “Recent Cases on Loss of Earnings: What you need to know” on the 21st November. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar looks at recent cases in relation to loss of earnings and…
COST BITES 25: DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT LEADS TO COSTS BEING AWARD ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
Those who write “robust” letters of response to a letter before action may benefit from reading the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors [2022] EWHC 2575 (Comm). The judge held that costs…
PROVING THINGS 240: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
There are many edicts warning against reliance upon judgments that concern permission to appeal. However the judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Harrison v TUI UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2557 (KB) is of interest in the “Proving Things” series and…
You must be logged in to post a comment.