SERVICE POINTS 18: DECISION TODAY: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE CLAIM FORM UNTIL AFTER IT EXPIRED, YET THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS UNYIELDING
We are continuing our examination of the Court of Appeal judgment today in relation to service of the claim form. The claimant’s solicitors received the claim form after the date it had expired. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal upheld the…
SERVICE POINTS 17: BREAKING NEWS… IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE CLAIM FORM FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY
The procedural problems caused by service of the claim form continue unabated. Here we look at a decision of the Court of Appeal today which highlights the very real dangers for claimants. Mistakes or delays by the court service may…
MAZUR MATTERS 35: DOES AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON SIGNING AN APPLICATION MEAN IT CAN BE STRUCK OUT “WITHOUT MORE”?
Here we are looking at case report which contains a reference to Mazur and appears to suggest that signature of an application by an unauthorised person means that the application is “liable to be struck out”. As it turns out…
COST BITES 307: DOES A FINDING THAT AN APPELLANTS HAD ACTED UNREASONABLY BELOW, AND SHOULD PAY COSTS, MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO PAY THE COSTS OF AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL
Here we have a case where a party was ordered to pay costs because it acted unreasonably in bringing an application, even though the tribunal in question was normally “cost-neutral”. That party then appealed the costs order and the appeal…
COST BITES 306: ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD TOOK CIRCUMSTANCES OUT OF THE NORM: INSURER ORDERED TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS TO THE CLAIMANT
Here we look at a case where the judge found that the defendant’s conduct in alleging fraud was such that costs should be ordered on the indemnity basis. Among other things this judgment reminds us of the dangers of alleging…
You must be logged in to post a comment.