THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 5 : THE CLAIMANT CAN’T NOW ARGUE SOMETHING CONTRARY TO HIS OWN PLEADED CASE
We are looking at another case in which the pleadings played a significant part. In Daniel Maurice Wagner v Bright Station Ventures Management Limited [2025] EWHC 669 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting rejected an argument from the claimant that was contrary…
DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY: RECENT CASES AND LESSONS TO LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 8th APRIL 2025
Awards for pain and suffering are made in every personal injury case. However the law and principles relating to these awards are rarely considered by practitioners. This webinar takes a close look at recent awards to enable practitioners to know,…
PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:
In H&P Advisory Limited v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Limited (formerly Randgold Resources Limited) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch) Mr Simon Gleeson found that the experts for each party were of no assistance in assessing the value of the work done by…
APPLICATIONS TO ADJOURN A TRIAL BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH: APPLICATION REFUSED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DID NOT ADDRESS SOME KEY ISSUES
In Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of the ongoing trial. The defendant had produced medical evidence…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 4: A FAILURE BY A CLAIMANT TO ADEQUATELY PARTICULARISE ITS CASE
When you start looking for cases about pleadings it is surprising how issues in relation to statements of case keep popping up. We see it in the judgment of Jeremy Hyam KC in Kau Media Group Limited v Thomas Hart [2025] EWHC…
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XVI: THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO READ THE JUDGE’S BODY LANGUAGE
Many of the posts in this series revisit previous series on the judge’s view. This post looks at the recent case of Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB). The judge made certain observations when disallowing the evidence of a…
TIME FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A “SECOND APPEAL”: COURT REFUSES TO GRANT EXTENSION
For the second time this week we are looking at issues relating to extension of time and appeals. In Abbotsley Ltd v Pheasantland Ltd [2025] EWHC 654 (KB) HHJ Karen Walden-Smith provided a timely reminder that a party who wishes…
UPDATE TO PROFESSIONAL USER GUIDANCE FOR THE DAMAGES CLAIMS PORTAL: SEE THE NEW DOCUMENT HERE
The Professional User Guidance for the Damages Claim Portal has been updated this month. Anyone using the Portal is best advised to have the new guidance to hand. THE UPDATED GUIDANCE The document from HMCTS can be found here…
NOW HERE’S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT – WHO HAD CAPACITY
In David Forsyth v Craig Howson & Anor [2025] EWHC 653 (KB) HHJ Claire Evans (sitting as Judge of the High Court) refused an unusual application by the defendants. The claimant had capacity to litigate and yet the defendants sought an order…
CHANGE IN COURT FEES FROM 8th APRIL 2025: LINK TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION
An earlier post set out the changes to court fees that are coming into force on the 8th April 2025. The Practice Direction that brings those changes into force has now been passed. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The Court and…
THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER
In Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) [2025] EWHC 602 (Ch) Master Kaye refused the claimant’s application for a split trial. The judgment considers in detail the guidance from the authorities and the matters the court should take into account….
“A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY”: WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL
The judgment of Mr Justice Hayden in F (A Minor) (Permission To Appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 (Fam) highlights a trap for those seeking permission to appeal. The time for appealing runs from the date that the order was announced and…
PROVING DAMAGES – THE CLAIMANT LAWYER’S BASIC TASK: WEBINAR 19th MARCH 2025
The “Proving Things” series on this blog is now up to number 256. The vast majority of this series is, in fact, about not proving things. That is where litigants fail to bring sufficient (sometimes any) evidence to court to prove…
COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)
I sometimes have to remind people (and remind myself) that one of the aims of this series is to keep an eye on costs awards that are actually made at hearings at trial. This provides an insight into what is…
COST BITES 222: A “RETROSPECTIVE” CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Singh & Ors v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a retrospective conditional fee agreement was invalid. The Court was, to say the least, suspicious of argument that the receiving party’s solicitors…
ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT
In John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd [2025] EWHC 594 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that a party had breached the rules relating to the embargo on a draft…
AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE
I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here. It is a case…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES
There is a consideration of the principles relating to the use of expert evidence in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 526 (Ch). The judge rejected the claimants’…
SERIES OF 10 WEBINARS ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: AND YOU CAN BUY A “SEASON TICKET”
The APIL Damages Series is 10 webinars looking at key elements of law and practice relating to personal injury damages. The webinars can be bought and watched individually. APIL has a special offer for all 10, details available here. …
COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY…)
In Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 HHJ Peter Marquand refused a claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. The claimant had issued Part 8 proceedings but failed to serve the witness evidence and particulars with the proceedings by the rules. …
PREPARING BUNDLES: A FREE ONLINE TOOL THAT MAY WELL HELP: INTRODUCING “BUNTOOL”
The last few weeks have seen a number of cases where judges have been critical (if not despairing) at the quality of the the bundles used at trials and applications. My attention has been drawn to “BunTool” a free online…
HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
HM Courts and Tribunal Services have published two documents to help legal professionals issue and manage an online money claim. THE DOCUMENTS 1. Issue and online money claim as a legal professional 2. Manage and online money claim as…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: “THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS”
The judgment in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Price [2020] EWHC 3276 (Ch) was given in October 2020, but has only recently arrived on BAILII. It concerns late service of a Part 36 offer. This is an issue rarely considered…
“THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROBATE CLAIM IN THAT THE DECEASED SAYS SHE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE”: A CHAOTIC TRIAL WHERE NO-ONE SEEMS TO HAVE THE SAME PAGINATION IN THE BUNDLES: AND THATS NOT EVEN HALF OF THE PROBLEMS…
The past few weeks have led to a number of cases about bundles. My working theory about trial and application bundles is that problematic bundles often reflect a much deeper malaise in the case itself. Support for that theory can…
COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) Mr Justice Constable rejected the claimant’s argument that the successful defendant’s refusal to attend mediation should lead to a reduction in the defendant’s costs. The case…
IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIM TO SUCCEED: “LIES IN THE COURSE OF LITIGATION ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE COURT”: SOME VERY UNCLEAN HANDS…
We are looking again at the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Bains v Irshad & Anor [2025] EWHC 491 (Ch). This time about the consequences of telling lies to the court. The equitable doctrine that most lawyers remember best is the…
WHAT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BUNDLES? “HUGGER-MUGGER” BUNDLES, WITH CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS MISSING: THE “ABILITY PROPERLY TO TEST THE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER SIDE”
The judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Bains v Irshad & Anor [2025] EWHC 491 (Ch) contains much of interest (not least there are not many civil judgments which end with the judgment stating that, because of the claimant’s evidence,…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 2: YOU CAN’T ADVANCE CAUSES OF ACTION NOT PLEADED IN THE CLAIM FORM
Having determined to look more closely at cases where the statements of case are at issue cases seem to come forward in abundance. The failure of a claimant to plead a cause of action in a claim form was considered…
SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER 2025: WEBINAR 12th MARCH 2025
Few lawyers can afford to ignore the effect of social media, both in relation to their cases and their practice generally. In some cases social media entries can affect the outcome of trials. There are specific duties placed upon lawyers…
JUDGE DOES NOT ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN A PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: IT CONTAINED “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE” THAT “ATTEMPTS TO USURP MY ROLE IN A CASE”
In Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB) Mr Justice Saini disallowed the calling of a witness that the claimant planned to call in an action for professional negligence. The witness statement relied upon contained opinion and inadmissible commentary. …
THIS SKELETON ARGUMENT IS FAR TOO LONG, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES – AND ISN’T GOING TO BE ADMITTED
In Henderson & Jones Ltd & Ors v Grange Heating Services Ltd & Ors (COSTS) [2024] EWHC 3572 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused to admit a “skeleton” argument that was too long and did…
COST BITES 220: QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO CO-CLAIMANTS WHO DO NOT BRING A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN A CASE IS STRUCK OUT
In BB & Ors v Khayyat & Ors [2025] EWHC 443 (KB) Mr Justice Soole rejected an argument that claimants who had not brought an action for personal injury could have the benefit of QOCS protection. The fact that they…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 1: FAILURE TO SERVE A REPLY ALLEGING FORGERY LEADS TO JUDGMENT AT TRIAL BEING SET ASIDE
For some time now I have been meaning to write a series on the numerous issues that arise when cases are not pleaded properly. There are a catalogue of cases where the parties come to court, normally shortly before (sometimes…
PROVING THINGS 256: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AFTER FALLING FROM A HORSE: THE ANIMALS ACT CONSIDERED
This blog has looked at the judgment in Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB) several times in relation to procedural issues and assertions of dishonesty. However the case, ultimately, was about a claimant who was injured when she fell…
“A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY”: ATTEMPTS TO “REOPEN” ISSUES WHEN A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT ARE HARDLY EVER FRUITFUL – AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE
There are a number of cases on this blog where litigants have attempted to “reopen” issues when a draft judgment is sent out to the parties for editorial corrections. We have an example in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies…
COURT FEES ARE GOING UP SOON: MOJ PRESS RELEASE STATES FEES WILL CHANGE IN EARLY APRIL 2025
A press release from the Ministry of Justice states that Court fees are to increase in early April (but there are some decreases). The release can be found here. “In early April 2025, and subject to parliamentary approval, the…
ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING BUNDLES: DIFFERENCES IN PAGINATION AND OTHER MISHAPS MEANT THAT A DECISION WAS UNFAIR AND THERE WAS AN ERROR OF LAW
In RP v Barnsley Metropolitan District Council [2025] UKUT 46 (AAC) Edward Jacobs, Upper Tribunal Judge, found that the errors with bundles at a First-Tier Tribunal led to unfairness and amounted to a an error of law. “There were, as…
THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN CARDIFF; HEARD IN THE COUNTY COURT AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SPLIT TRIAL: HIGH COURT ISSUES A WARNING
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB). At the conclusion of the judgment there is a very clear warning that this case: (i) should not have been issued in the…
DISHONEST EXAGGERATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SIGNIFICANT TO AMOUNT TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THIS WAS DISHONEST EMBELLISHMENT TO UNDERPIN AN ESSENTIALLY HONEST CLAIM
In Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter decided, by the very narrowest of margins, that the claimant’s deliberate exaggeration of her claim did not amount to fundamental dishonesty. There was some exaggeration of the effect…
You must be logged in to post a comment.