EXPERT WATCH 23: NOW THINGS GET EVEN MORE REMARKABLE: EXPERT WRITES TO THE COURT TO SAY “MY EVIDENCE WAS WRONG”: REGULATORY BODY THINKS THE REPORT WAS VERY WRONG…
The previous post recorded how it is still possible to be surprised by what goes on in litigation. We see that again here, but to a greater extent. After a trial and a judgment was given an expert wrote to…
EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…
No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here. The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…
COST BITES 302: WAS THE JUDGE WRONG TO IMPOSE A WASTED COSTS ORDER? ISSUES OF CAUSATION AND “NEGLIGENCE” CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
We are looking at a case where the Court of Appeal considered a wasted costs order in critical terms. Although we are considering a decision in the criminal courts the principles relating to wasted costs are of general application. Firstly…
MEMBER NEWS: UPDATE ON THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINAR SERIES: THIS SITE WILL BE OFFLINE FOR AN HOUR ON THE 29th OCTOBER
There are two pieces of news. Firstly the site is having a short “rest” on the 29th October, this is only for an hour – but it will be back newly invigorated. Secondly a reminder of some of the webinars…
COST BITES 301: THE AARHUS COST CAP FIGURES ARE NOT SETT IN STONE: BUT IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PERSUADE A COURT TO CHANGE THEM
This may be the first time we have looked at the issue of costs and badgers. We are looking at a case where the defendant sought to change the amounts of the “Aarhus cap” on the recoverability of costs in…
SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND TO EXTEND TIME: THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK PERMISSION CAN EASILY BE MISSED: SOMETHING FOR WOULD BE APPELLANTS TO WATCH OUT FOR
The circumstances in which a judge at first instance can grant permission to appeal from their own decision are circumscribed by the rules. Permission can only be given at the hearing itself, or any adjournment thereof. The same applies to…
LITIGATORS: SLEEP LIKE A BABY NEXT YEAR BY NOT REPEATING ALL THE CLAIM FORM MISTAKES PEOPLE HAVE MADE THIS YEAR: WEBINAR 5th NOVEMBER 2025
Needless to say there have been plenty of cases this year relating to service (or mis-service) of the claim form. This webinar looks at cases over the past 12 months with the primary aim of ensuring that you are not…
THE RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS ABOUT FAILURES OF PROCEDURE WERE NOT “NIT PICKING”: RATHER THEY SHOWED THAT THE APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY BROUGHT AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED…
There are often major differences of view as to the effect of non-compliance with the rules. We have such differences here. The claimants, in default, regarded the respondents’ procedural objections as “nit-picking”. The judge, however, held that the default was…
You must be logged in to post a comment.