THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
The issue of adjournments being sought because of the ill-health of a party or witness (and in one case Leading Counsel) is always a concern. Sometimes these applications are made late, on the morning of the trial itself, and the…
SERVICE POINTS 33: COURT MADE AN ORDER FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE ON A RUSSIAN COMPANY’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
Here was have a successful application for alternative service on the defendant’s legal representatives. It shows that in some circumstances the courts are willing to make such orders, particularly when the defendant is based abroad and there are potential issues…
SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
For many years now we have been looking at the interaction between an application to set aside a default judgment and the “Denton” criteria. Here we look at another case where the court considered relief from sanctions in this context. …
THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
Here we consider some unusual grounds of appeal. An unsuccessful claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had erred in giving leeway to the defendant who was a litigant in person. What is important here is that…
COST BITES 374: IF THIS WAS A CBA THE UNILATERAL ABILITY TO VARY RATES WOULD HAVE LED TO IT BEING SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS UNREASONABLE
We are continuing with our examination of a case we looked at yesterday. The court found that the agreement between the parties was not a Contentious Business Agreement. However the judge also stated that it it had been a CBA…
COST BITES 373: THIS ENGAGEMENT LETTER WAS NOT A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT: “CERTAINTY” IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT
In this case the court considered whether a solicitor’s letter of engagement amounted to the creation of a Contentious Business Agreement. It was held that there was too much uncertainty for this to be a CBA. The failure to set…
COST BITES 372: BILL REDUCED FROM £2.6 MILLION TO £750,000: WHY SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS CAN MATTER (A LOT…)
For many years now we have been looking in detail at summary assessments. On occasion the sums involved, and the reductions that take place, can be considerable. We have such a case here. An initial schedule of £2.6 million (excluding…
COST BITES 371: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IN ACTION: THE RESPONDENT’S SENSIBLE APPROACH SAVED TIME BUT INVESTIGATION WAS NEEDED
We are continuing with the practice of looking at what actually happens in summary assessments. These are rarely looked at in detail elsewhere. This case is also interesting in that, although the respondents adopted a “neutral” approach to the application…
THE COURT ALLOWS “CO-COUNSELLING” OF FIRMS ACTING FOR THE CLAIMANTS: BUT WITH STRINGENT CONDITIONS…
I cannot recall many cases that deal with the issue of “co-counselling”, that is allowing more than one firm of solicitors to act for a group of claimants in one action. That is the issue considered here. The court allowed…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: BOTH WITNESSES ARE HONEST AND BELIEVE THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH – BUT ONE IS WRONG…
It is often the case that the most difficult cases are those that depend almost wholly on witness recollection. This is made far more difficult in a case such as a motor accident where the incident happened in a matter…
USEFUL CHECKLISTS TO HELP ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MAZUR: PART OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED WITH THE WEBINAR ON THE 9th APRIL
The webinar on Thursday provides a wealth of material in relation to compliance with the Court of Appeal guidance as to the conduct of litigation after the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur. In addition there is a series of…
COST BITES 370: THE OTHER PART OF THE CAR PARKING SAGA: COURT AWARDS COSTS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT IN A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK CASE
Here we return to the case considered in the previous post. The judge refused to allow the claimant’s representative a right of audience in a Small Claims Track case. This was a Small Claims Track case, however the judge then…
MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
I am grateful to Ritchie Young for sending me a copy of this judgment in which the District Judge refused to allow an unauthorised person a right of audience in a small claims track case. It is not technically part…
MAZUR MATTERS 58: LEARN HOW TO SUPERVISE STAFF PROPERLY – OR RISK GOING TO JAIL: IT IS WISE TO RECORD SUPERVISION ARRANGEMENTS FULLY
One key element of the Mazur decision, that needs repeating, is that it does not allow unauthorised persons to “conduct” litigation. It allows unauthorised people to assist and conduct the tasks involved in litigation so long as they are properly…
NEW RULES CAME INTO FORCE YESTERDAY: A QUICK REMINDER
New rules came into force yesterday. The key changes have been reviewed in a series of posts on this site. To refresh your memory a summary of the posts are below. Changes have also been made to the rules in…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY (ON A TUESDAY…) : THE RULES ABOUT SERVING NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS: SERVE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE – OR TAKE THE RISK
There are cases where those making applications make a tactical decision not to serve the application at once. They think, wrongly, that the rules only require three days notice to be given. This belief if wrong. As we shall see…
MAZUR MATTERS 57: THE INDEMNITY INSURER’S VIEW: “DOES IT CHANGE THAT MUCH REALLY?”: “I STRUGGLE TO THINK OF REAL LIFE SCENARIOS THAT WOULD HAVE FALLEN FOUL OF SHELDON J’S DISTINCTION BUT ARE NOW LAWFUL (AND VICE VERSA)”
I have written several times that when it came to providing practical guidance on how to deal with the Mazur judgment it was often insurers that were far more helpful than the regulators. It is worthwhile having a look at…
MAXIMISING RECOVERY IN INTER PARTIES COSTS: THE ROLE OF THE FEE EARNER: WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026: 12.00 pm: TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU OBTAIN MAXIMUM RECOVERY ON ASSESSMENT
This webinar examines the crucial role of the fee earner in maximising the recovery of legal costs. Many litigators have limited experience of detailed assessments and may be unaware of the challenges that can arise during the process. The session…
ANOTHER CASE ON FAILING TO PAY THE COURT FEE: AN APPEAL WAS STILL LODGED IN TIME EVEN THOUGH NO FEE WAS PAID AT ALL
Here we have a case that extends the principles in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey. The Court of Appeal held that a statutory appeal was lodged within time, even though it was sent by email to the court and no fee was…
SERVICE POINTS 32: MISSING OUT THE NAME OF THE ROAD ON THE CLAIM FORM DID NOT INVALIDATE SERVICE
The judge here considered an argument that a failure to include the name of the defendant’s street on the claim form meant that service was defective. This argument was rejected. The fact that the street was mentioned on the land…
MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: (THIS IS NOT “AS YOU WERE”): WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026
I have already written about the misunderstandings that have occurred in relation to the Mazur judgment. The judgment is far more nuanced than some commentators suggest and a detailed knowledge of what is required is essential for anyone involved in…
COST BITES 369: SOMETIMES LITIGATION IS MORE ART THAN SCIENCE: “BANKSY” ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER ACTION DISCONTINUED, BUT NOT A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER
Here we have a case where the claimant discontinued. Discontinuance made the claimant liable to pay costs. However in this case it was ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis (from a key date). The judge then considered the…
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.