ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIV: “RAMBO TACTICS” DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE…)
Continuing with revisiting guidance from judges in relation to advocacy. Here I advocate (hopefully in a civil way) learning from one judgment. That is the judgment of District Judge Chin in the extraordinary case of Revson -v- Cinque & Cinque in…
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL: “THE NEED TO PROMOTE THE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IN ALL CASES”
In Omanovic v Shamaazi Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 110 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer granted the defendants’ application that the terms of settlement with two claimants were inadmissible in the trial of the remaining claimant. On the facts of…
COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?
We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here the judge considered (and rejected) that claimant’s [former client’s] argument that the CFA entered into with the solicitor was…
COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”
In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence. The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…
You must be logged in to post a comment.