COST BITES 393: A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAW FIRMS WAS VALID: THERE WAS NO BREACH (AND IF THERE WAS IT WAS NOT MATERIAL): FRESH OFF THE PRESS – JUDGMENT THIS AFTERNOON
I am grateful to Jamie Carpenter KC for drawing my attention to this judgment given this afternoon. It relates to an interesting dispute between law firms. The claimant had entered into a CFA with the defendant. The defendant argued that…
AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE: HOW A CRUCIAL TIME LIMIT FOR APPEALING WAS MISSED: MISLABELLING OF THE FILES: THIS WAS NOT A “MINOR ERROR…”
Here we look at how a simple mistake in the naming of a file led to a potentially disastrous problem when it led to an appeal being out of time. The wrong documents were sent to the court when an…
AN APPEAL OVER A TIME ESTIMATE FOR TRIAL: THIS SHOULD NOT LAST 15 DAYS, NOR WILL IT BE DONE IN 5: EIGHT DAYS REMAINS THE CORRECT CONCLUSION
This blog has covered issues relating to time estimates many times. I cannot recall, however, a case where there has been an appeal over a judicial determination of a time estimate for a trial. We have such a case here. …
EXPERT WATCH 48: HOW AN EXPERT WITNESS CAN LOSE CREDIBILITY AT TRIAL (IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE – BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE UNIVERSAL…)
Some areas of litigation rely heavily on expert evidence. Clinical negligence is often one of those areas. It is always interesting to read judicial views when a matter reaches trial. Here was have a judgment where the judge considered aspects…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: A LITIGANT CANNOT APPLY TO SET ASIDE A DECISION MADE WITHOUT A HEARING WHEN THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THIS AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS
Here we look at a recent decision that has major practical implications for anyone making an application, or anyone disgruntled with a court decision. The applicant asked, specifically, for an application to be considered on paper. The matter was considered…
You must be logged in to post a comment.