WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED
This post arises out of the previous post in the series. However here I want to concentrate on one issue arising out of this. The claimant’s solicitors appear to have advised the claimant that they would not be liable to…
DAMAGES IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH AND LOSSES PRIOR TO DEATH 2026: WEBINAR 2nd JULY 2026
Not all fatal claims fall neatly under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 framework or the general rules of personal injury damages. This is an area where practitioners have to act with great sensitivity but also where a detailed knowledge of…
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 1: COSTS ADVICE ON DISCONTINUANCE
This series is about examining cases where things went wrong for litigators and what readers can do to avoid this happening to them. The aim is not to criticise those who make mistakes but to use their experience to prevent…
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
The Online Procedure Rules have been published and come into force on the 7th September 2026. Initially these apply just to possession proceedings. However they are a sign of things to come. ” The Overriding Objective of these Rules is to…
EXPERT WATCH 53 (THAT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAIN): THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS MADE MISTAKES AND THEN “GAVE AN IMPRESSION OF LOFTINESS” : THE JUDGE FELT UNABLE TO RELY ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS
Here we have an example of a judge clearly rejecting the expert evidence adduced on behalf of a defendant and giving clear grounds for the criticism of them. This was in the context of a case where the defendant had…
You must be logged in to post a comment.