COST BITES 186: “MY CASE WAS SO HOPELESS I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS”: NOT A WHOLLY ATTRACTIVE ARGUMENT
In Mainwaring v Bailey [2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam) Mr Justice Henke ordered an unsuccessful appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. He rejected the appellant’s argument that his appeal was so evidently hopeless that the respondent should not have responded. He…
THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: THE START OF A SERIES OF “REPEATS” (1)
Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the judgment of Mr Justice Joseph W. Quinn He has been blunt in his assessment of witness credibility in some reported cases. He is equally blunt in his assessment of lawyers…
THE COURT’S POWERS IN RELATION TO ORDERING MEDIATION: A SUMMARY: AND A WEBINAR ON MEDIATION OF PARTICULAR USE TO HOUSING LAWYERS
The Civil Procedure Rules were amended on the 1st of this month to make it clear that the court can compel the parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution. Here we look at the changes. There is a webinar on…
ANOTHER CASE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: s.57 DOES NOT APPLY TO A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT
In Andrew Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2024] EWHC 2487 (KB) Mr Justice Sheldon found that a claim for false imprisonment was not a claim for damages for personal injury. A false imprisonment claim, therefore, was not subject to the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.