NEW SERIES FOR 2026: CIVIL PROCEDURE “BACK TO BASICS MONDAY”: STARTING ON …. MONDAY…

We look at many cases on this blog where litigants (often more accurately – litigators) experience major procedural difficulties.  It is surprising how often these difficulties arise from a very basic failure.  That is a failure to follow a rule, or sometimes failing to know that it exists.   This year I am updating the “back to basic series”.  As the title suggests we will be looking at very basic things, however these are the things that often go wrong (and where errors are relatively easily avoided).

” Mr Mak’s genuine belief that in acting as he did he was complying with the CPR in my judgment falls far short of a good reason for the default. Mr Moody QC accepted that the authorities supported that view. Mr Mak’s view of the rules was wrong, and in my judgment plainly so. The view he held was also clearly unreasonable. A solicitor, no matter how experienced or inexperienced, must be taken to know the Civil Procedure Rules.”

HHJ Bird in Holterman v Electrium (2020) EWHC 3915 ( TCC)

(A new series to ensure litigators have Happy Mondays)

THE SERIES IN A NUTSHELL

If litigators get into trouble it is rarely because of lack of knowledge of the law, or an issue as to statutory interpretation.    More often it is a failure to consider a very basic procedural step.   This new series gives us a chance to revisit these principles, consider and update previous posts and head off trouble before it even arrives…