MAZUR MATTERS 31: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD REVIEW OF “WHY MAZUR WAS A SURPRISE” – AND WHAT CHANGED AFTERWARDS?
The Legal Services Board has set out the scope of its review of “advice and guidance provided to the profession on the conduct of litigation by approved regulators and regulatory bodies”. Stripped down to its basics the question being asked…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 34: APPEAL ALLOWED (IN PART) WHERE TRIAL JUDGE AWARDED DAMAGES BASED ON UNPLEADED ALLEGATIONS
Here we have a case where the claimants’ case was based (in part) on conduct by one of the defendants that was not pleaded. The defendant appealed on that basis. On appeal the judge was not persuaded by the respondents’…
DEFENCES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: SHOULD RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BE GRANTED?
Here we look at a case where the defendants failed to comply with a peremptory order for disclosure. The defences stood struck out. The issue the judge had to determine was whether relief from sanctions should be granted. This in…
COST BITES 304: “NEGLIGENCE” HAS A PARTICULAR MEANING IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION: THERE MUST BE “SOMETHING AKIN TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS”.
The judgment here considers what is meant by “negligent” when wasted costs are sought against a legal representative. The review of the authorities makes it clear that it has a specific meaning. (There is a Lord Denning judgment where he…
COST BITES 304: IN A DISPUTED WILL CASE WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHAT SHOULD THE BASIS OF THE ORDER BE? SHOULD THERE BE AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS?
There are particular rules that relate to costs in probate proceedings. Here we look at a decision on costs that is of more general interest. The judge considered the issue of whether the unsuccessful defendant should pay the costs, the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.