THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Here we are considering a case that covers issues relating to clinical negligence, the drafting of pleadings and wasted costs. It gives much to think about, particularly for those bringing professional negligence actions. (Choose the right type of doctor before…
MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
We are continuing with a detailed examination of the cases and principles relating to what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. Here (with some major caveats in mind) we look at the Court of Appeal decision that has been…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE
Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid. The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.