SERVICE POINTS 10: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION WHEN PROCEEDINGS WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE: A CASE THAT ROUNDS UP TWO WARNINGS GIVEN TODAY
Earlier today I warned that a recent decision by the Divisional Court in relation to CPR 6.15 was unusual and should not give great comfort to litigators generally, later we looked at the new Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide which…
COST BITES 287: YOU’VE AGREED FOUR LEADING COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL – ONLY TWO OF THEM ARE GETTING PAID AFTER THAT
When the parties agree a phase of a budget this can, on the face of it, have a knock on effect on the related phases. But, as Cab Calloway famously said – that ain’t necessarily so. In the case we…
WITNESSES WHO GIVE THE COURT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR “OPINION”: I’M NOT SAYING IT LED DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT LOSING THIS CASE – BUT IT DID NOT HELP…
There appears to be no end to the practice of witnesses giving the court the benefit of their opinion in witness statements. There have been numerous cases where the judiciary have warned against this. The white book has a specific…
NEW EDITION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2025: FOLLOW THE RULES OR YOU COULD BE SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS
There is a new edition of The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 available on the Judiciary website. It contains clear guidance on procedure and, as the Preface makes clear, is keen to help practitioners avoid common procedural pitfalls. It…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COULD BE DRAFTED TO “POINT OF NEAR HOMOGENEITY” DID NOT IMPRESS THE COURT (AT THE COSTS BUDGETING STAGE – AND PROBABLY FAR BEYOND…)
Here we look at some interesting observations made about the process of drafting witness statements. The court was budgeting the process and considering an argument that there should be “numerous reviews and peer-reviews” during the process of drafting the statements….
SERVICE POINTS 9: SERVICE AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IS NOT GOOD SERVICE BUT ON THIS OCCASION – IT FITTED THE BILL…
Here we are looking at an unusual case in relation to service. It is a case where the claimant served at the wrong address but (unusually) the court exercised its discretion to retrospectively validate service. There is more to this,…
You must be logged in to post a comment.