SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED IN ACTION ISSUED 4 YEARS AFTER LIMITATION EXPIRED
In Tyers v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 896 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer allowed an application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in a case where the proceedings were issued 7 years after…
Social media, personal injury litigation and personal injury lawyers: Webinar 5th May 2023
The use of social media in litigation is now widespread. An understanding of how and why it is used is essential to the modern litigator. The webinar will looks the use of social media in the courts: examining the case…
BEWARE OF OVER-EAGER EXPERTS: AN EXPERT THAT SIMPLY ADDRESSES THE POINTS THAT SUPPORTS THEIR HYPOTHESIS IS HEADING FOR TROUBLE
In Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) HHL Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) was critical of the role of one of the experts in the case. “A second reason…
THE EXTENSION OF FIXED COSTS: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDES
The extension of fixed costs is a major topic. I will write about the practical implications when we are nearer to the implementation date. In the interim there are some useful links and guides. THE RULES The new rules…
COST BITES 78: A CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS CONFINED TO LITIGANT IN PERSON RATES
In Wilson v Emmott [2023] EWHC 816 (KB) Mr Justice Saini (sitting with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker as a costs assessor) rejected a lawyer’s appeal against a decision that the lawyer was only entitled to recover costs on the basis…
WASTED COSTS AGAINST A SOLICITOR BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO ENSURE THE CLAIMANT HAD PROBATE PRIOR TO ISSUE: A CASE TO POINT
I am grateful to solicitor Jonathan Fuggle of Browne Jacobson for sending me a copy of the judgment in Rafferty -v- Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, a copy of which is available here 1460100_Rafferty v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust_Approved Judgment_31.05.22 (2). …
COST BITES 77: JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT TERMS OF DISCOUNTED CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS MEANT THE SOLICITORS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY COSTS OF ALL: COMPULSORY READING HERE – AND MUCH TO THINK ABOUT
The judgment of Judge Brown, sitting as a Master of the Kings Bench, in Ascension Asset Management Ltd & Anor v Sky Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWHC 875 (KB) should be mandatory reading for any litigator who enters into a retainer…
COST BITES 76: COURT DID NOT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST HEALTH AUTHORITY IN A WELFARE CASE: THERE ARE OTHER WAYS A COURT CAN SHOW ITS DISAPPROVAL OF A PARTY’S CONDUCT OF A CASE
In West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust v AX (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 11 Vikram Sachdeva KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for costs against a health authority. The judgment contains a review of the rules relating to…
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 25th APRIL 2023
This blog spends a lot of time looking at cases where things have gone wrong, for one reason and another. This webinar on the 25th April 2023 looks at the main problem areas in litigation and the practical steps that…
COST BITES 75: LIABILITY TO COSTS: RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY COSTS BUDGET: WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER AFFECTS LIABILITY TO COSTS MADE PRIOR TO THAT OFFER
We looked at the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wigan Borough Council v Scullindale Global Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 779 (Ch) in an earlier post on Proving Things. There is a subsequent…
COST BITES 74: CLAIMANTS HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS OF DISCONTINUED APPLICATION FOR A GROUP LITIGATION ORDER: COUNTING THE COPPERS
In Beck & Ors v Police Federation of England and Wales (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 685 (KB) Senior Master Fontaine held that the claimants should pay the costs of an – abandoned – application for a Group Litigation Order. “I…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: SOCIAL MEDIA, SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND A LONG WALK
I am grateful to Legal Executive Vanessa Brooks for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Harrison in Thomas -v- Owen (21st March 2023, Cardiff County Court). It is another example of social media playing a part in…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE – BUT WITH A DIFFERENCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIM FORM CONTAINED NO FACTS AT ALL
In Free Leisure Ltd (t/a “Cirque Le Soir”) v Peidl And Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 792 (Comm) Charles Hollander KC, sitting as a High Court judge considered the appropriate course when the “facts” section of the claim form…
HOURLY RATES ON DETAILED ASSESSMENT ABOVE THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: A STARTING POINT BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE FINISHING POINT
In Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 827 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley made some observations on the use of the Guideline Hourly rates in a detailed assessment. These may well be the starting point, they do not…
Drafting witness statements the rules, the guidance and the cases: Webinar 18th APRIL 2023
Judges regularly complain that witness statements are inadequate and do not contain sufficient information, alternatively that they contain much information that is irrelevant and the witness is unable to give. This webinar looks in detail at the rules and practice…
EXPERT WITNESS OBTAINS ANONYMITY: BUT THEIR TONE DEMONSTRATED DISRESPECT FOR THE COURT
An earlier post dealt with the judge’s decision in M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC. However there is a subsequent judgment that demonstrates an extraordinary response on the part of the expert involved. In a second judgment, M v F &…
PARTS OF THE EXPERT’S REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RED FLAG TO LAWYERS: JUDGE CONSIDERS WHETHER THE PARTIES HAD INSTRUCTED THE CORRECT EXPERT
In M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC 186 Recorder Reed set out the importance of an expert knowing, and complying with, the rules relating to the presentation of expert evidence. The judgment also emphasises the importance of the lawyers…
COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO CLAIMANTS TO CHANGE EXPERTS: BUT WITH CONDITIONS
The principles relating to the court granting permission to a party to change expert were considered in detail by Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Avantage (Cheshire) Ltd & Ors v GB Building Solutions Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 802 (TCC). The…
ANOTHER CHANGE IN THE RULES ON APRIL 6th: PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS CAN SAY GOODBYE (IN SOME CASES) TO THE ADMIRALTY COURT
The focus on the new rules on QOCS coming into force on the 6th April may lead to losing sight of some other changes. In particular the new rules and amendments to the Practice Direction in relation to accidents at…
LITIGANTS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER CANNOT ISSUE VALID PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE COURT: “RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION” HAD NO EFFECT: ACTION WAS A NULLITY
In Williamson v The Bishop of London & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 379 the Court of Appeal held that a person subject to a Civil Proceedings Order must obtain permission from the High Court so they could issue valid proceedings. …
PART 36 RULES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: WAS THE OFFER MADE IN TIME? WAS THE OFFER VALID? WHEN DOES A TRIAL “START”? WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?
The judgment of Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Mate v Mate & Ors [2023] EWHC 806 (Ch) involves a consideration of several issues in relation to Part 36. The judge decided that a Part 36…
Damages for pain and suffering: The legal principles and their practical implications: Webinar 12th April 2023
On the 12th April 2023 I am presenting a webinar on “Damages for pain and suffering”. Looking, in a detailed way at the practical issues that a litigator has to consider when dealing with awards for pain and suffering. The…
DEFENDANT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN WITNESS EVIDENCE SERVED ONE YEAR LATE: WIDER INTERESTS OF JUSTICE CONSIDERED
I am grateful to barrister Andrew McLaughlin for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Tiernan-Spratt & Anor v City Of Wolverhampton Council [2023] EWHC 811 (KB). It concerns a successful appeal. The judge at first…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND: “GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS” DID NOT PERSUADE THE COURT
I am grateful to barrister Andrew Ward for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Eyre which was handed down earlier this afternoon. In Mantey -v- Ministry of Defenchttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/761.htmle [2023] EWHC 761 (KB) a finding of fundamental…
INSURER FAILED IN PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE APPLICATION: BUT… IF THE RIGHT PARTY HAD BROUGHT THE APPLICATION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
The judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Holt v Allianz Insurance Plc [2023] EWHC 790 (KB) is another round in a long running battle between car hire companies and insurers. Whilst the insurer may have lost this round it is…
PROVING THINGS 252: THE SOLICITORS WERE NEGLIGENT BUT THERE WAS NO LOSS: CLAIM DISMISSED
Many a salutary lesson can be learnt from the judgment of Mrs Justice Bacon in Cutlers Holdings Ltd & Anor v Shepherd And Wedderburn LLP [2023] EWHC 720 (Ch). It was a case about negligence in the conduct of litigation….
HANDWRITING EXPERTS COME UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE NOT ACCEPTED
Issues relating to handwriting experts comprise a surprisingly large percentage of the search terms that lead to this blog. The question of the quality of such experts was considered by Master Clark in Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch)….
PROVING THINGS 251: PROVING THAT YOU STOLE MY DRAGON IS NOT AN EASY TASK: FIRE BREATHING MONSTERS ARE A VERY OLD CONCEPT INDEED
In Evans v John Lewis Plc & Anor [2023] EWHC 766 (IPECP HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a High Court Judge) had to compare and contrast two fictional dragons. The claimant failed to establish that the defendants’ dragon was so…
FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT PROPERLY AND ISSUING OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 674 (KB) Master Cook determined a number of procedural issues. Here we look at two: (1) the failure to serve on a defendant properly; (2) the question of…
You must be logged in to post a comment.