LITIGATORS: IF YOU DON’T PAY YOUR EXPERTS AND THEY ARE NOT COMING TO TRIAL, DON’T BE SURPRISED IF YOUR ACTION FAILS
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Doyle v HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2722 (KB) shows a surprising set of facts when an expert wrote directly to the court. The expert made it clear that he was not…
THE “SLIP RULE” CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: ALSO THE COURT’S INHERENT POWERS TO VARY ITS ORDERS (APPLICANT UNSUCCESSFUL ON BOTH COUNTS…)
The “slip rule” in civil procedure is often mentioned, but rarely considered at length. There is a detailed consideration of the rule and relevant authorities in the judgment of Mr Justice Henshaw in Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc…
WEBINARS ON DAMAGES IN 2024: SOMETHING TO WARM UP THE WINTER DAYS EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR…
Early next year I am presenting a series of eight webinars on personal injury damages. The series looks at the major heads of damages for personal injury and clinical negligence cases, with a particular emphasis on those claims in the…
WINDING UP PETITION NEEDS TO BE ISSUED IN LOCAL COURT: TYNE FOR PETITIONERS TO CHANGE THEIR PRACTICES
In The One Collection Real Estate Ltd v Insolvency & Law Ltd [2023] EWHC 2673 (Ch). HHJ Kramer held that a winding up petition should be issued and heard in the circuit that has closest links to the case. A block policy…
HALLOWEEN FOR LITIGATORS: AN ICY (AND SCARY) BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHAT SCARES LAWYERS MOST?
Here we take a look back at the old, old, days of 2017. There was a suggestion there be a “Halloween” post for lawyers – what scares the legal profession most? . Having taken up the challenge I then promptly delegated…
CLAIMANTS NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT ASSIST THE COURT IN ITS TASK (WITH A FEW OTHER REASONS)
In Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) Master Stevens rejected the claimants’ application to call an expert. The judge contains a detailed consideration of the law and authorities relating to the court’s discretion…
COST BITES 109: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: A REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES
We are returning to the judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Kenton v Slee Blackwell PLC [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO) looked at in the previous post. That judgment also contained a detailed review of the authorities relating to the significance…
COST BITES 108: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE LAWYER TO GIVE ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF COST AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF INACCURACY (THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE SOLICITOR)
The judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Kenton v Slee Blackwell PLC [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO) provides an object lesson in the perils of the clear warnings and advice that clients have to be given in relation to costs….
“A COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE WAY OF PREPARING FOR AN IMPORTANT HEARING”: NON-COMPLIANT AND INCOMPLETE BUNDLES: WITNESS STATEMENTS IMPROPERLY PREPARED
The judgment of HHJ Pearce in Shobeiry v Patel [2023] EWHC 2549 (KB) shows how failing to comply with the rules can lead to major problems in relation to hearings. Here there was non-compliance with the rules relating to bundles,…
WANT TO OBTAIN AN ORDER AFTER RECEIVING A DRAFT JUDGMENT? BETTER READ THIS
I have been kindly sent a message from Tim Lord KC which sets out observations made by Miles J in relation to Practice Direction 40E., in particular 4.4.. The Practice Direction deals with the handing down of judgments. 4.4. imposes…
WEBINAR ON DRAFTING SCHEDULES IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: 9th NOVEMBER 2023
I am presenting a webinar on drafting Schedules on the 9th November 2023. Booking details are available here. “In the event, the Original Schedules of Loss were shown to be quite unreliable and, in many respects, bore little or no relation…
COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR
I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Freedman in The Scout Association -v- Bolt Burdon Kemp [2023] EWHC 2575 (KB). On appeal Freedman J upheld the…
CHANGES IN ELIGIBILITY FOR COURT FEE REMISSION: THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (FEE REMISSION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) ORDER 2023
The Courts and Tribunals (Fee Remissions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023 increases the capital and income limits for fee remission from the 27th November 2023. The Order is available here. The explanatory notes are set out below. CAPITAL CHANGES…
SOLICITORS CAN’T RECOVER COSTS UNDER AN UNENFORCEABLE CFA: WHAT IS MORE THE CLIENTS CAN RECOVER SUMS BACK
In Diag Human SE & Anor v Volterra Fietta (Re Assessment Under Part III Solicitors Act 1974) [2023] EWCA Civ 1107 the Court of Appeal upheld earlier judgments that solicitors, acting under a conditional fee agreement that claimed more than…
THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HANDBOOK FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: A REMINDER OF THE FOUR GOLDEN RULES FOR DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS
It is ten years since the publication of the Handbook for Litigants in Person. It can be found here. I wrote about it, briefly, when it was first published. Although there have been some procedural changes since the section on…
COST BITES 106: BARRISTERS BEWARE: COUNSEL ON DIRECT ACCESS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER COSTS FROM THEIR (FORMER) CLIENT: AN UNFAIR TERM MEANT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO NOTHING
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Glaser & Anor v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) is one that needs to be looked at by every barrister involved in direct access work, and their clerks. The judge found that a…
WORKING REMOTELY: AVOIDING PROCEDURAL AND OTHER PITFALLS: WEBINAR 16th OCTOBER 2023
Working remotely can give rise to additional pressures on litigators, particularly in relation to procedural issues and dealing with problems that occur in litigation and with clients. This webinar looks at the major pitfalls that can occur in personal injury…
COST BITES 105: HOW TO LOSE £1.4 MILLION IN COSTS: A SHORT REPORT OF A SHARP SHOCK FOR THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS
Normally I use first-hand judgments to write about cases. However I think it important to point people towards the case reported by PIC Legal “Time for a Retainer Review”. This reports on the judgment of Costs Judge James in IXG (by his…
COST BITES 104: “THE LATEST BATTLE IN A WIDER FORENSIC LEGAL WAR”: DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST A COMPANY IT ASSERTED WAS “THE REAL PARTY” IN THE DISPUTE
In the judgment given today in Soares v Wilson [2023] EW Misc 11 (CC) HHJ Luba KC rejected an application that costs be paid by a non-party. The defendant’s application that a PLC pay the costs of the action because…
CLAIM FORM SERVED LATE: NO EXTENSION OF TIME GIVEN: PLANNING TO FAIL
In Telford And Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin) Mr Justice Eyre held that a claim form had been served late. Further the claimant did not come within…
PROVING THINGS 233: THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT – BUT THE DAMAGES ARE NIL
In Hope Capital Ltd v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP [2023] EWHC 2389 (KB) Mr Justice Constable found that the claimant had suffered no loss. This could be an expensive loss for the claimant, after a seven day trial. “”For these…
FIXED COSTS: LONDON WEIGHTING (AN EXTRA 12.5%): BUT – WHERE IS LONDON?
The fixed costs provisions provide a “London Weighting” of an additional 12.5%. “London” has a specific meaning as defined in the Practice Direction set out below. CPR 45.3 Additional costs for work in specified areas (‘London weighting’) 45.3.—(1) Where…
FIXED COSTS: ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR “UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR”
We are continuing with our bite sized examination of the fixed costs regime by looking at CPR 45.13. This allows the court to reduce, or increase, the fixed costs for “unreasonable behaviour”. The rule appears only to allow this variation…
FIXED COSTS: THE COURT MAY CONSIDER A HIGHER SUM IF A PARTY OR WITNESS IS “VULNERABLE”
The rules make provision allowing the court to award a higher sum for damages when a party, or witness is vulnerable. However there are significant caveats. It must be the vulnerability that has required additional work to be undertaken and the…
PARTY NOT PERMITTED TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM OTHER CASES AS HEARSAY EVIDENCE
One of the issues decided by Mr Justice Mellor in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2023] EWHC 2408 (Ch) related to the attempts by a party (COPA) to adduce expert evidence from other trials by way of hearsay evidence…
FIXED RECOVERABLE COSTS: A POWER TO ORDER GREATER AMOUNTS IN “EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES” AND THE STING IN THE TAIL
Continuing the examination of fixed recoverable costs. CPR 45.9 gives the court power to order sums greater than FRC in “exceptional circumstances”. The applicant’s difficulties are (i) there is no definition of exceptional circumstances (ii) there is a real sting…
DAMAGES IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH AND FOR LOSSES PRIOR TO DEATH: WEBINAR 11th OCTOBER 2023
Claims for reduction of life expectancy or for losses prior to death can be difficult and complex. They require a highly sensitive approach. They also require a large degree of knowledge of the relevant legal principles. There are traps and…
FIXED COSTS AND PART 36: THE 35% GAIN IF A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN OFFER
The new rules introduce a fixed percentage as an “additional liability” in cases where a case is subject to fixed costs and a case has Part 36 costs consequences. Where a claimant has beaten their own offer and, normally, an…
LEEDS BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURT: MOVING IN EARLY 2024
This weeks HMCTS update contains the news that Leeds Business and Property Court is moving in early 2024, to the fourth Floor of Westgate House. Over the road from the Combined Court Centre. MOVING TO WEST GATE Leeds Business and…
TODAY’S THE DAY: KEY POSTS AND ARTICLES ON FIXED COSTS
I suspect that this blog will be writing about fixed costs for some time to come. To mark (I won’t say “celebrate”) the start of the new regime I have done a round up previous posts, useful lectures and webinars…
You must be logged in to post a comment.