SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
There must be many anxious litigators who have read the words of CPR 6.15 and happily assumed that their case is saved. On the face of it this rule gives the court a wide power to authorise service by another…
SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)
This will not be the only case about (mis) service of the claim form this week, however it may be the largest. We have the “traditional” pattern of a claimant leaving service until the very last day and then serving…
COST BITES 391: TOO MUCH CORRESPONDENCE, GRADE C RATES NOT INCREASED AND “SO CALLED” SKELETON ARGUMENTS, WHICH REPEAT THE CONTENTS OF OVER-LENGTHY WITNESS STATEMENTS
There are some interesting observations in the short judgment on costs in this case. There was too much correspondence, “witness statements” were in reality skeleton arguments, with the contents then repeated in skeleton arguments. Furthermore a “good” Grade C is…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
In Serra -v- Harvey [2024], wasted costs were ordered on an indemnity basis against the claimant’s solicitors because the lateness and condition of the trial bundles. The bundles were described as “haphazard”. This is just one of numerous posts on…
COST BITES 391: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION THAT SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THERE IS NO “RESTITUTIONARY” RIGHT TO DAMAGES WHERE THE CFA ITSELF MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
I wrote about this case in August 2025 “Here we have a case that could well bring tears to the eyes of any litigator who works on a conditional fee basis. For the second time, on appeal, the claimant solicitor’s…
You must be logged in to post a comment.