CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: THE LAW, PRACTICE AND SPECIAL CASES: WEBINAR 17th NOVEMBER 2025
You may be reading this for the second time – but it may be partly your own fault.… This webinar looks at the law relating to contributory negligence, the legislation and the key cases. Booking details are available here. …
SERVICE POINTS 20: ANOTHER ACTION FAILS BECAUSE OF NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A REMINDER THAT CPR 7(6) IS VERY STRICT: THE COURT WOULD NOT IMPLY AN AGREEMENT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR SERVICE
The sheer number of cases on mis-service of the claim form this year indicate that, in all litigator’s offices, there should be large signs that state “serve the claim form properly and on time”. Today we are looking at another…
PERMISSION TO APPEAL “SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON” AND A FRIENDLY STATE
CPR 52.6(1)(b) states that a court can give permission to appeal where ” there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard”. That rule is rarely considered. However we a direct consideration of that that rule in…
THE SOLICITOR AND THE “STING” OPERATION (1): THE METHODS USED TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM THE SOLICITOR: “HE WAS DECEIVED AND PLAYED FOR A FOOL…”
A party to an action hires an enquiry agent to deceive their opponent’s solicitor into giving them information. That scenario may seem far fetched but it is what actually happened in this this case. It is worthwhile looking closely at…
SERVICE POINTS 19: THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION DESPITE NOT USING PART 11 (AND, PERHAPS, A WORKING EXAMPLE OF WHY LITIGATORS NEED TO READ THIS BLOG…)
We are looking at another claim form case. This time the issue related to whether the defendant had made the correct application and, if it had not, whether it was prevented from arguing the court did not have jurisdiction. What…
THE DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR HAS BEEN “SET UP”, SECRETLY RECORDED AND TOLD US THINGS HE SHOULD NOT: NOW WE WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THOSE RECORDINGS: QUITE A CASE THIS…
Here we have an extraordinary case. The claimants’ employed a private enquiry agent to meet, on a pretence, with the defendants’ solicitor. That meeting was used by the enquiry agent to obtain information about the defendants’ case. It was videoed…
You must be logged in to post a comment.