“PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SERVE QUITE DIFFERENT PURPOSES”: THE NEED FOR CLAIMANTS TO PLEAD THEIR CASE WHEN APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION
We are looking at a case that deals with two issues: (i) the practice of seeking an injunction without having first issued proceedings; (ii) the desirability of a party seeking an injunction to put a fully pleaded case before the…
MAZUR MATTERS 24: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (5): THE MEANING OF “COURT” AND WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED BY ACT
Here we continue with the examination of what is meant by the “conduct litigation” by looking at the Statute and Law Society Guidance as to the meaning of “court”. This extends to some, but not all, tribunals. (Some courts are…
EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”
Here we look at a judgment about medical evidence in a personal injury action. The issue was one of causation – whether an earlier injury to the claimant’s leg “caused” a later decision to have that leg amputated. The critique…
You must be logged in to post a comment.