AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: PROTECTING THE CLIENT AND PROTECTING YOURSELF: WEBINAR 26th MAY 2026
This webinar examines claims of under-settlement brought against claimant solicitors, focusing on how courts determine whether professional negligence has occurred in the handling, settlement, or litigation of a case. It explores key case law where negligence was both established and…
AN “OUNCE OF COMMONSENSE” COULD HAVE RESOLVED THIS – AS IT IS THE COURT WILL ALLOW LITIGATION TO CONTINUE IN TWO JURISDICTIONS.
Here we are looking at the observations made in coming to a decision (where neither applicant was successful) more than the actual process itself. The judge felt that the stance of the parties defined commonsense, but commonsense could not…
THE POSITION FOLLOWING DEATH OF A PARTY: THE FAMILY PROCEDURE RULES CANNOT “BORROW” PROVISIONS FROM THE CPR: APPEAL STRUCK OUT
This blog has looked, many times, at the problems caused by the death of a party during the course of litigation. Here we look at a problem that occurred in the Family Court. The fundamental point here is that the …
COST BITES 388: A COMPANY CANNOT CLAIM ITS OWN EMPLOYEE’S TIME AS LEGAL COSTS WHEN IT WAS REPRESENTED ON AN APPEAL
Here we have a reiteration of a long established principle as to costs. A company can only recover legal costs on an assessment, not the costs of being a litigant. Here the appellant sought to recover both. The Costs Judge…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 72: THE COURT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMANTS A “FALL BACK” POSITION OF A SECOND HEARING: “A TRIAL IS THE FIRST AND LAST NIGHT OF THE SHOW; IT IS NOT A DRESS REHEARSAL”
Here we have a situation which presents a real dilemma for those seeking, and pleading, a claim for damages. In this case there were a large number of permutations in the claimants’ claim for damages. Only some of these had…
You must be logged in to post a comment.