MAZUR MATTERS 56: WHY WE MUST BE WARY OF THE SRA DEFINITION: CAN AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON REALLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION” EVEN UNDER SUPERVISION?
The judgment, quite expressly, passes a lot of responsibility for the detail of supervision on to the regulators. In this respect it is important that the regulators get the law right (and lets be honest their track record to date…
MAZUR MATTERS 55: THINGS WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (2): WHAT DEGREE OF SUPERVISION IS REQUIRED: THIS “WILL ALWAYS DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES”
It is important to note that the Court of Appeal decision yesterday did not create a “free for all” for unauthorised persons to undertake the conduct of litigation. Far from it. A central part of the judgment was the need…
MAZUR MATTERS 54: THINGS WE STILL DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (1) WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? THE COURT DID NOT SUPPLY AN “EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION”
The judgment given yesterday still leaves us with many uncertainties and litigators still need to tread with some care. Here we look at one of the matters that the Court of Appeal was not able to give a definitive answer…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY 2: WHAT HAPPENED TO COSTS WHEN PARTS OF THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WERE STRUCK OUT?
We are looking separately at the order for costs made in the case considered in the previous post. This emphasises the point that non-compliance with the rules can be costly. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COURT STRIKES OUT PARTS OF DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT AS NON COMPLIANT WITH PD57AC (AND THE DEFENDANT IS A BARRISTER…)
This case adds to the growing number of cases where the courts have considered whether a witness statement breaches PD 57AC and the consequences for breach. The defendant’s initial statement contained numerous breaches of PD57. A revised statement was more…
You must be logged in to post a comment.