WEBINAR ON PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: 9th SEPTEMBER 2026: USEFUL GUIDANCE, CHECKLISTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
This webinar provides a practical and up-to-date analysis of the law and practice relating to provisional damages and periodical payments in personal injury litigation. It begins with a review of recent case law, including a professional negligence claim arising from…
SHOULD (OR CAN) THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE WHEN THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT IS BASED IN ITALY? ANOTHER PAD APPLICATION COMES TO GRIEF…
Earlier today I promised a second post on pre-action disclosure. This case considered a number of issues, including whether the court actually has jurisdiction to make a PAD order when the respondent is based abroad. The judgment goes further than…
THROWBACK FRIDAY:”WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN THINGS GO WRONG BLAME THE SOLICITOR” (SEPTEMBER 2016)
Here we are looking at a post from September 2016 on an issue that remains extremely current. When a witness statement is found to be inaccurate that witness will often blame their solicitor, or the person responsible for drafting the…
SHOULD THE COURT ORDER PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE? THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THE COURT WOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN ANY EVENT
This is the first of two posts today about applications for pre-action disclosure. The applicants were, eventually, unsuccessful in each. Here the judge found that the applicants had not met the first jurisdictional requirement for disclosure. Even if they had…
COST BITES 446 : SHOULD THE COURT HAVE MADE A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER? SHOULD THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND WAS THE COURT BOUND TO ACCEPT HIS EVIDENCE?
This is a case about non-party costs orders that has some unusual elements. Firstly an argument that since the appellant was not cross-examined the court was bound to accept his assertions that he had no direct financial interest in the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.