LOST YEARS DAMAGES AND THE CHILD CLAIMANT: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY
The judgment of the Supreme Court today considered whether “lost years” damages should be awarded to a young child. The Court, by a majority, allowed the claimant’s appeal and held that damages should be awarded in these circumstances. This post…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EXPERT EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS (ALLOWED IN PART): ADVOCACY AND ARGUMENT – HAD TO GO
We are looking at a case where the sole issue the court was considering was the question of whether passages in the witness statements provided by the claimant were admissible. Unusually the Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed parts of the statements…
COST BITES 355: VARYING A BUDGET (3): PROPOSED VARIATIONS DISALLOWED BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE “PROMPTLY”
This is the final part of today’s trilogy considering applications to vary costs budget. We have already seen that the judge determined that many issues in the case were “significant developments” which could, in theory, lead to a variation of…
COST BITES 354: VARYING A BUDGET (2) HOW WAS THE ISSUE OF “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” CONSIDERED IN PRACTICE?
The previous post looked at the judge’s consideration of the principles relating to variations in a costs budget. Here we look at how this worked out in practice with the judge considering whether various issues amounted to “significant developments”. Some…
COST BITES 353: VARYING A COSTS BUDGETS (1): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED: WHAT IS MEANT BY “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS”?
We are taking a detailed look at a judgment that deals with proposals to vary costs budgets. This post will look at the judge’s considerations of the rules, principles and guidance that relates to variation of budgets. Later posts will…
EXPERT WATCH 36: THE JUDGE FINDS THAT EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLE” (AND IT GETS WORSE…) “I MEAN, IT IS DISHONEST, FULL STOP”
We are used to seeing judicial criticism of experts on this site. We have an example here of a claimant’s case coming to grief because the judge did not accept her evidence or the evidence of the two experts called…
You must be logged in to post a comment.