FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: CLAIMANT BROUGHT A FRAUDULENT £3 MILLION CLAIM: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED
This blog has looked at cases of fundamental dishonesty many times. It has to be remembered that, more often than not, bringing dishonest claims is also contempt of court. This case deals with the appropriate sentence that should be passed…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN ROAD TRAFFIC CASES: DO ALL ROADS LEAD TO FROOM? WEBINAR 19th NOVEMBER 2025
Issues relating to contributory negligence often play a large part in road traffic cases. This webinar looks at the case law and guidance in relation to the key issues that often arise. Booking details are available here. (A failure to wear…
MAZUR MATTERS 39: CILEX APPLIES TO APPEAL MAZUR DECISION
An announcement on the CILEX website today states that it is applying for permission to appeal the decision in Mazur. The argument will be that, the Law Society, The SRA and the High Court construed the Solicitors Act incorrectly. Watch…
SERVICE POINTS 22: AN APPLICATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WHEN IT WAS SENT BY FIRST CLASS “SIGNED FOR SERVICE”: THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT DID NOT COLLECT IT IS NOT RELEVANT
Here we look at a particular point in relation to the service of an application. The application had been sent by first class “signed for” service at an address given for service by the respondents. The respondents did not receive…
COST BITES 309: ISSUES OF SECURITY FOR COSTS CONSIDERED IN A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT : WITH IMPORTANT POINTERS HERE FOR ALL SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATIONS: “I AM NOT PREPARED TO DECIDE THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE”)
We are looking at an application relating to security for costs in the context of a solicitor and own client assessment. However, as the heading indicates, there are more general lesson here for all litigators. In particular the need to…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 37: PARTICULARS OF CLAIM STRUCK OUT: THEY “FAIL TO FULFIL ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED FOR, AND PURPOSES TO BE SERVED BY, PARTICULARS OF CLAIM”
In this case the claimants claimed £292,806,729,326,976,872,097,543,994.24,(or alternatively £377,594,620,661.41.). However the court held that their pleaded case did not comply with the rules, and it was not possible for the defendants to know the case they had to meet. The…
You must be logged in to post a comment.