COST BITES 342: THE CLAIMANTS’ HYPERBOLIC APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT COST THEM DEARLY: PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR £132,400 FOLLOWING THEIR CHALLENGE OF A BILL OF £147,436.33
If a case were needed to warn about the dangers of litigation this is one of them. The claimants challenged a solicitor’s bill of £147,436.33, the bill was reduced by some £18,000 (less than the solicitor had offered to settle…
WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS A SOLICITOR’S FIRM AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CLAIM “HINDERED BY A SERIES OF PROCEDURAL BREACHES”: NOT A GREAT START TO THE ASE
It is a poor start to a solicitor’s application for judicial review of the Legal Ombudsman when the firm itself has failed to comply with rules and directions. We have such a case here. The claimant firm applied for judicial…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026
As regular readers of this site know procedural mistakes derail more civil claims than weak evidence or bad law. Missed deadlines, defective pleadings, non-compliance with court directions and costs failures can all result in serious sanctions — or the claim…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS DENIED AFTER A PATTERN OF DEFAULT DELAY AND EXCUSES: TO BREACH ONE UNLESS ORDER MAY BE REGARDED AS MISFORTUNE, TO BREACH TWO LOOKS LIKE …
Staying with the theme this week of the making and breaching of peremptory orders alongside applications for relief from sanctions, we are considering what, on any view, as an “ambitious” application for relief from sanctions. The defendant here had breached…
COURT SETS ASIDE A DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT HAD BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: THE ORDER WAS NOT DRAFTED “IN THE CLEAREST AND MOST PRECISE LANGUAGE” NECESSARY
There have been several cases this week about the drafting of, and compliance with, unless orders. We see this issue again here. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant litigant in person had complied with an order of the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.