MAZUR MATTERS 23: THIS ISSUE GOES BACK TO 1729: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE RIGHT TO “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THIS WILL HELP CONTEMPORARY DEBATE
Some of the commentary on the Mazur issues suggests that the problem occurs because of a “rogue” definition contained in a schedule to the Legal Services Act 2007. In fact there have been statutory provisions on this issue since (at least) 1729. …
GIVING ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: ANOTHER REMINDER OF THEIR IMPORTANCE: “PARTIES MUST BE REALISTIC AND GIVE EARLY AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS”
This is not the first time this blog has looked at judicial criticisms of inadequate time estimates. On this occasion it was in relation to unrealistic reading time. This provides an opportunity to revisit the guidance given in relation to…
MAZUR MATTERS 22: USEFUL LINKS: GUIDANCE FROM THE SRA (IN 2022) – WHICH SAID EXACTLY WHAT MAZUR SAID: A SITUATION HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT…
Here we look at guidance given by the SRA in November 2022. The one thing that the SRA can point to is the fact that this guidance said, in clear terms, precisely what was said in Mazur about who can…
MAZUR MATTERS 21: WHEN AN INSURER GIVES OUT DETAILED ADVICE THEN WE SHOULD ALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION …
There is a growing amount of guidance on practical means for lawyers to deal with the Mazur decision. Links have been provided in earlier posts. However this guidance, in particular, is of some considerable significance. A major insurer has provided…
THE REQUIREMENT TO PUT YOUR CASE TO YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESS (AND THE POTENTIAL DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS IS NOT DONE): SOME UNUSUAL PROCEDURAL TANGLES IN THE THE HIGH COURT
We are looking at a case where, for reasons that are unclear, the claimants failed to challenge a key part of the evidence of the defendant’s witness. That evidence was central to the claimants’ case. The claimants’ attempts to rectify…
You must be logged in to post a comment.