MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
A reminder that member subscribers have access to discounts on webinars being presented throughout the year. The details of the webinars, the discounts and how to find the discount codes are below. The first webinar sets out the practical consequences…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 54: ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULARS WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT SOME WORDS NEED TO BE CHANGED: CHOOSE YOUR WORDS WITH CARE…
We are returning to look at the case where the Master refused to strike out pleadings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process. However it was also made clear that the use of certain words in the…
EXPERT WATCH 34: THE COURT REFUSES TO REPLACE A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BUT ALLOWS SOME OF THE PARTIES TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT
When it is appropriate for a court to replace a jointly instructed expert? That issue was considered in this case. The judge rejected the allegations made about the jointly instructed expert, however given that expert evidence was central to the…
WHEN PERMISSION IS (AND IS NOT) REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A CLAIM BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MINORS: IT STILL HAS SERIOUS COSTS CONSEQUENCES THOUGH
Here we are looking at an interesting issue relating to discontinuance. In some circumstances a claim brought by a minor or protected party cannot be discontinued without the court’s permission; in other circumstances no permission is required. The distinction is…
PROVING THINGS 278: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE THEIR CASE WHILST THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE FRAUD: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES LEAD TO EVIDENCE NOT BEING ACCEPTED
Here we look at a judgment where the claimant failed to establish his case. The defendant also failed to prove that the claimant was involved in a “staged crash”. It shows how cumulative inconsistencies in a party’s evidence can lead…
You must be logged in to post a comment.