COST BITES 421 : THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE IS BACK IN COURT: CLAIMANT’S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT OF A CASE WHERE HE LOST “ON EVERY MATERIAL POINT OF FACT AND LAW” LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
We are looking at another case where the claimant’s conduct of the case has led to costs being awarded on an indemnity basis. The judgment is clear that the claimant deliberately adopted an aggressive case which had no factual merit…
SERVICE POINTS 51: HIGH COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY EMAIL ON THE DEFENDANT’S SOLICITORS
In this case the defendant, a judgment debtor, attempted to set aside an order that a claim form could be served by email on their solicitors. The situation was an unusual one in that the claimant had a judgment against…
TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS TO WATCH: GIVING REMOTE EVIDENCE FROM ABROAD: SEEKING COSTS BEFORE THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
Here we are looking “preliminary matters” in a judgment that highlight two procedural issues. One of them is of general relevance, the other more specific but still of significance, particularly for those who are unfamiliar with procedure in the General…
COST BITES 420 : INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED: “YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT” OR “YOU COULD HAVE MADE A LOWER OFFER” ARE NOT AN ATTRACTIVE ARGUMENTS IN THIS CONTEXT
Here we look at some interesting arguments when claimants were attempting to avoid an award of indemnity costs. The judge was not impressed by the submission that the defendant should have applied to strike the action out. He was equally…
ANOTHER BREACH OF JUDGMENT EMBARGO CASE: WHY SOLICITORS MUST BADGER THEIR CLIENTS ABOUT COMPLIANCE: “THE COURT EMBARGO IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM JOURNALIST EMBARGO”
Here we have yet another breach of the embargo on the handing down of a court judgment. The breach appears to have occurred because of a misunderstanding as to the important distinction between a court embargo and a journalism embargo. …
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: LARGE PARTS OF THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE STRUCK OUT: “INADMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW” “OF MARGINAL RELEVANCE” AND DEAL WITH “WHOLLY COLLATERAL ISSUES”
Here we have a case where the court was asked to exclude large parts of a party’s witness statements. That application was successful in part. The judge finding that many of the statements, or parts of the statements, were simply…
You must be logged in to post a comment.