THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 35: THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD RUN A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT PLEADINGS WAS “NOTHING MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING” (OR PERHAPS TANGERINE DREAMING)
Here we are looking at a pleadings issue that arose in the Intellectual Property Patents Court. The scientific issues here may be complex, however the rules remain the same. The judge found that that the defendants’ pleaded case did not…
“LITIGANTS IN PERSON SHOULD BE WARY OF UNQUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DEFEND OR PURSUE CASES BY REFERENCE TO SPURIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE”
It is rare for this blog to look at judgments from other jurisdictions. However some words from the High Court of Ireland caught my eye. It offers advice, in particular, to litigants in person. (This is not a warning in…
THE CLAIMANT RELIED ON A FALSE AUTHORITY: THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LITIGANT TO CHECK THE CITATION
We are looking again at the phenomenon of “false” authorities. However in this case the courts were more forgiving of the litigant who had relied on a non-existent case. The judgment does, however, show the need for care in legal…
PROVING THINGS 273: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: IT “BEGGARS BELIEF” THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW OF THE RELEVANT MATTERS
Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s findings of fact at trial. Usually this is difficult, or the court acts with some reticence, here the Court uses the phrase “it beggars belief”…
You must be logged in to post a comment.