COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS REFUSAL TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT OF COMMITTAL APPLICATION: THE COURT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT A PARTY COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION
In this case the Court of Appeal overturned a decision not to grant an adjournment of committal proceedings. The Court held that the judge below did not appear to be aware of the fact that a respondent to committal proceedings…
HOW A FIRM OF SOLICITORS SHOULD NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN LITIGATION: A WORKING EXAMPLE: EVIDENCE THAT WAS “GENERALLY UNRRELIABLE” AND “LACKING IN CREDIBILITY”
Here we are looking at a judgment that contains some remarkable observations and findings about the conduct of a solicitor. The judge was concerned not only about the failure to comply with directions, the inadequate nature of the statement of…
PROVING THINGS 284: APPLICANT FOR INJUNCTION FAILS ON JUST ABOUT EVERY POINT: THE CASE WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND; NO EVIDENCE OF A RISK OF DISSIPATION; MATTERS THAT LEAVE THE JUDGE “BAFFLED” AND UNCOMFORTABLE
The applicant in this case sought an injunction. The application was (unusually) made on notice. The respondent did not have the opportunity to put in evidence. The applicant failed on just about every point. It was unclear what the applicant’s…
GETTING YOUR CASE INTO THE RIGHT COURT: A BIZARRE DECISION TO PUT A CASE IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION: MAKING THE CORRECT SELECTION IS IMPORTANT AND MIGHT MATTER
It is important that cases are managed, and heard, in the appropriate specialist court. Here we have a case that went on a frolic of its own into the Chancery Division for a while before being put back into the…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MAKING A MISTAKE AND THEN BIGGING A DEEPER HOLE FOR YOURSELF: MARCH 2018
Here we are looking at a set of circumstances that we have seen many time, both before and after this post from March 2018. A lawyer makes a mistake, panics and then makes horrendous decisions in an attempt to cover…
EXPERT WATCH 42: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE – BUT A SIMPLE STEP UP FROM “NUMBER CRUNCHING” : ALSO OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Here we have a case where the judge found evidence provided by experts to be of “assistance” but where he was clear in his view that the information put forward was not expert evidence. The evidence was “simply a kind…
THE “SEVEN DAY” DOCUMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: YOU DON’T PLAN NOT TO COMPLY – BUT…
In civil procedure it is often the failure to comply with clear and obvious rules that can cause difficulties or annoyance. We have an example here in the Planning Court (however the rules in question apply to all judicial review…
KEEPING TIME ESTIMATES UNDER REVIEW: JUDGE GIVES REASONS FOR ADJOURNING APPLICATION: AND (BY THE WAY) “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN”
It is rare that we see a detailed judgment on the reasons why an application has to be adjourned. Here the judge comments on the reasons for the adjournment but also observes that the initial time estimate for the application…
SOLICITORS REFERRALS, TOMLIN ORDERS, UNLAWFUL TERMS, ADMISSIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO WITHDRAW FROM THOSE ADMISSIONS: A LOT OF LEGAL LIFE IS HERE…
There have been many interesting cases relating to “admissions” on this site. Here we have a intriguing case relating to a solicitor’s dispute with a former member of staff. It involves Tomlin orders which were partially unlawful, admissions and attempts…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (3): TIME LIMITS FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROCUREMENT ACT MADE CLEAR…
Some of the changes being introduced on the 6th April 2026 are relatively niche. However given that they could impact CLB readers who deal with these issues on a regular or “one off” basis I do not like to miss…
THE COURT REFUSES AN APPLICATION THAT A TRANSCRIPT BE OBTAINED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE: IF YOU ARE BROKE THEN WHY HAVEN’T YOU ATTENDED COURT TO PROVE THIS?
Here is a judgment that contains a central irony. The applicant had failed to attend court to be examined about his means and as a result his passport was confiscated. His application to have the passport returned was refused. In…
IF YOU MISSED THE WEBINAR ON INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION IT IS NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
The webinar on informing the client about the costs of litigation is now available “on demand” and details can be found here. THE REASONS FOR THE WEBINAR Recent Legal Ombudsman decisions show that solicitors’ firms are being ordered…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: MAKING ASSERTIONS WITH NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE LEADS TO APPLICATION BEING REJECTED: THE EVIDENCE WAS SO “UNSPECIFIC” THAT IT FAILED TO PROVE THE APPLICANT’S CONCERNS
Here we look at the judge’s assessment of the evidence produced in support of an application that details of the applicant should not be disclosed. The judge held that the evidence was “unspecific” and was not corroborated. There was a…
COST BITES 368: THERE WERE NO “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE” WHICH MEANT THE SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED OUT OF TIME: THERE IS NOTHING THAT CALLS FOR AN EXPLANATION
We are returning to the previous case to look at the second half of the Cost Judge’s decision. Having determined that the bills were statute bills the judge then considered whether there were “special circumstances” which would entitle the claimant…
COST BITES 367: THE SOLICITOR’S TERMS OF BUSINESS MEANT THAT BILLS RENDERED WERE EACH FINAL BILLS: THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT WERE “UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR”
The issue of whether “interim” bills rendered by solicitors were “statute” bills or “Chamberlain” bills is one that can have profound practical importance. If they are not statute bills then they may be open to a Solicitors Act assessment. If…
COURT ORDER PREVENTS CLAIMANTS FROM SENDING COURT DOCUMENTS TO CERTAIN PARTIES: THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT: THE DEROGATION FROM THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IS JUSTIFIED
Here we have an unusual order under CPR 31.22 (2) made in unusual circumstances. The claimant was precented from sending documents disclosed to in proceedings, and mentioned in open court, to various specified entities. It is a reminder of the…
THE APPELLATE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE APPELLANTS TO RUN A NEW ISSUE : THE ABILITY TO PAY COSTS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY
Here we have a case where the appellants were, initially, allowed to argue a point that had not been argued in the court below. The Court of Appeal was clear in its view that the judge should not have allowed…
SERVICE POINTS 31: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPLY IN TIME TO LIFT A STAY: A RARE SUCCESS ON A CLAIM FORM ISSUE
Here we are looking at an unusual set of facts in relation to service of the claim form, not least because it led to the issues being considered under the Denton criteria and is a (relatively rare) example of a…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 61: CLAIM FOR LIBEL WAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED: “MUCH OF THIS ESSENTIAL DETAIL IS MISSING”
As we shall see there are very strict and precise requirements for pleading libel. There are numerous cases where the claimant has failed to get past the preliminary stages because of inadequate pleadings. We look at such a case here….
HALLUCINATIONS KEEP APPEARING IN THE REPORTS: TWO MORE EXAMPLES: COUNSEL AT FAULT IN BOTH…
We are looking at two more examples of “hallucinated” cases appearing in reported cases. In both cases it was counsel that was presenting the case. (In one case counsel was acting for himself). “The incident does, however, demonstrate vividly the…
PROVING THINGS 283: FAILING TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM FOR PROVISIONAL DAMAGES FOR ONE SET OF SYMPTOMS BUT ESTABLISHING IT IN ANOTHER
There are relatively few judgments in which the law and practice relating to provisional damages are considered in detail. We have such a case here. Further it is an example of the claimant failing to establish provisional damages in relation…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A NOTICE DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT: CPR 32.19
Here we look at a case that illustrates a very basic principle of civil procedure and evidence. It is a case where the claimant was, in essence, disputing the authenticity of several documents. However a basic procedural step had not…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 60: FAILING TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE” LEADS TO TRIAL BEING RESTRICTED TO LIABILITY (AND THE CLAIMANT’S FACING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS)
Here we are looking at a failure to plead the claimant’s case as to damages fully. The claimant wanted to advance a claim for “loss of chance” in addition to seeking damages on the balance of probability. The judge rejected…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS OF DRAFTING PLEADINGS: WEBINAR 2nd APRIL 2026
The series on the “Current importance of pleadings” has now reached 59 posts. There are other posts in the series that are imminent. This webinar looks at issues in relation to drafting statements of case. BOOKING DETAILS Are available…
COST BITES 366: DEFENDANT LOCAL AUTHORITY LANDLORD TO PAY COSTS TO BE ASSESSED FOLLOWING TENANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER
This is an interesting case both for landlord and tenant lawyers and for those interested in civil procedure. The claimant brings an action for housing disrepair. The defendant made a Part 36 offer of £1,000 for the claimant’s general damages….
WHEN FUNDING AND CFA SCHEMES GO BADLY WRONG: A CASE THAT EXAMINES THE FALLOUT: £48 MILLION PAID OUT TO DATE … AND COUNTING
Here we have an important decision for litigators, litigation funders, legal insurers and clients. It is a challenge to summarise this case, but it is essential reading nevertheless. Here, as an initial view, is an overview of the funding scheme…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MORE ABOUT LITIGATORS AND WORKLOAD (IT’S STILL NUTS): MARCH 2016
Here we look at a post from March 2016. It raised some comments at the time and followed on from a previous post we have looked at (which in turn led to several comments). It asks the, fairly fundamental, question…
COST BITES 365: SOMETHING AKIN TO COSTS BUDGETING IN A FAMILY CASE – WHERE SIX LAWYERS WERE EMPLOYED, ONE CHARGING £1,130 AN HOUR: “THERE IS SOMETHING OF A LACK OF REALITY IN BOTH SETS OF FIGURES”
There is no real equivalent to costs budgeting in the Family Court. On the whole this is a “no costs” jurisdiction. However we have something similar here. In essence the judge held that the applicant put forward an unrealistic “budget”…
NEW EDITION OF THE KING’S BENCH GUIDE: WHERE TO FIND IT AND THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
A new edition of the King’s Bench Guide has been published. There are many useful points for litigators, in particular using CE-FILE, the new email addresses and some corrected links. “The Guide does not have the status of a Practice…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF HAS ITS OWN LINKEDIN PAGE (“ABOUT TIME TOO” – APPARENTLY)
Civil Litigation Brief now has its own LinkedIn page. It is another way of following the posts on this site. Posts will be posted as they are published and it is another way of being able to keep up to…
COST BITES 364: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CPR IS “PAY AS YOU GO”: JUDGE SUMMARILY ASSESSES COSTS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES AT £109,576 PLUS VAT
Here we are returning to a case we looked at yesterday. The judge granted the claimant summary judgment on certain issues. The defendants elected not to attend the application. The defendants were ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis. …
THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLICITORS’ ESTIMATES IN RELATION TO COSTS: SOME EXAMPLES WHERE PROBLEMS HAVE OCCURRED (WITH A FINAL PLUG FOR THE WEBINAR ON THE 19th MARCH)
The recent short series on this site about the Ombudsman and estimates of costs highlighted the issues that can occur when there are disputes over costs and the original figures given by the solicitor. However the Ombudsman is not the…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 7: CLAIM FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AS A RESULT OF BEING PRESENT AT BIRTH WAS STRUCK OUT: TESTING THE PARAMETERS OF PAUL -v- WOLVERHAMPTON
This case represents an attempt to sidestep the decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1. As we shall see it was not successful. This is one of the first, if not the first, reported case since…
PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT: NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FROM 14th APRIL 2026: COSTS SCHEDULES SHOULD BE FILED USING EXCEL SPREADSHEETS
NB THIS PRACTICE NOTE WAS REPLACED ON THE 14th APRIL – BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE – IT WAS REPLACED WITH A FURTHER NOTE, SEE THE BLOG POST HERE The Chancellor of the High Court has issued a Practice…
SOME PROCEDURAL POINTS ABOUT APPLICATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: APPLYING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM (AN ERROR THAT WAS FORGIVEABLE IN THIS CASE)
This case gives rise to some interesting procedural issues in relation to applications for summary judgment. The application for summary judgment was made prior to the proceedings being served. This was in breach of the rules, however on the facts…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY II: A STATEMENT THAT WAS “BASED ON A COMBINATION OF SPECULATION AND DOUBLE, TRIPLE OR EVEN MORE REMOTE HEARSAY”
We have looked at many cases in which judges have been critical of the way in which witness statements are drafted. This case is one of the most clear and extreme examples. The defendant (a firm of solicitors) failed to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT TELLING LIES – BUT I STILL DON’T BELIEVE YOU: CREDIBILITY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS HONESTY…
One of the most difficult things to explain to clients and witnesses is that they may well believe they are telling the truth. They may well not be liars. However this does not mean that the court will accept their…
DECISION TODAY IN RELATION TO RECOVERABILITY AND ASSESSMENT OF FEES CHARGED BY MEDICAL REPORTING ORGANISATIONS: ANOTHER ROUND IN A VERY LONG WAR…
We are looking at another round in the ongoing “costs of medical reporting organisations” series of battles. As the judge anticipated this may well not be the last round. Here I provide a brief summary of the conclusions. A more…
PROVING THINGS 282: THE INJURED CLAIMANT ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO…)
Here we look at a Privy Council decision in a personal injury case. The claimant lost at first instance, the defendant having elected to call no evidence. What is interesting about this case is the constant motif in the judgment…
COST BITES 363: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF A HEAVY COMMERCIAL APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT IN PRACTICE: £87,698 REDUCED TO £70,158.64 (BUT NOT TO £39,460): “COMPARATIVE SPEND CAN BE A CROSS-CHECK; IT IS NOT DETERMINATIVE”
We are continuing with the practice of looking at summary assessments. These receive relatively little attention, however they can play a large part in the economics of litigation. Here we see some interesting arguments in relation to hourly rates, the…
ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 3: THE COUNTY COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE AN ORDER FOR SALE OF MORE THAN £30,000
Does the County Court have jurisdiction to enforce an order for sale when the sums in dispute are more than £30,000? That was the issue considered here. The case is another reminder (if one were needed) about the dangers and…
EXPERT WATCH 41: THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO OVERTURN A DECISION WHERE THE “WRONG” TYPE OF JOINT EXPERT WAS INSTRUCTED
This is an unusual case where, after the event, a party to the litigation argued that the court had relied on the “wrong” type of expert evidence. An educational psychologist had been instructed as a joint expert whereas what was…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 7: HEADING OFF PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET: (WEBINAR THIS THURSDAY 19th MARCH 2026 – WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS)
This short series has aimed to highlight the ongoing difficulties that litigators, in particular, can have with giving compliant costs information to their clients. In looking at this topic it is clear that there are numerous cases where clients have…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION: STATISTICAL RISK REDUCTION DOES NOT SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Establishing causation is a key element of many clinical negligence cases. Here we have a case where the issue of causation was put in two ways: the “but for” test and alternatively the “indivisible injury” test. The claimant did not…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 6: YOU SAID IT WOULD COST £2,500 – £3,000 – I’VE PAID YOU £16,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING ESTIMATES AS TO DISBURSEMENTS
This decision emphasises the fact that when giving costs estimates the solicitor should also do their best to estimate the costs of disbursements in addition to their own costs. Here the solicitor mentioned that there would be additional costs if…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE “BEAR TRAP” IN WAITING
The back to basics point today is based on a recent case which shows the importance of serving the particulars of claim within the four month period allowed for service of the claim form. The claimant served the particulars three…
EXPERT WATCH 40: THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED WITNESS: “THE DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO APPLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND TO FIND THE FACTS HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE…”
This is a case where the judge did not accept the views of a jointly instructed expert as to the authenticity of a document that was central to the case. The expert did not have access to all the relevant…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED AFTER CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: “THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCK OUT”
Here we look at the “second half” of the decision considered in the previous post. Having rejected the claimant’s submissions that breaches of a peremptory order should be considered under CPR 3.10 the judge then went on to consider the…
THE BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER IS A SERIOUS MATTER: IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE DEALT WITH UNDER CPR 3.10
Here we look at an interesting, but eventually futile, about the approach the court should take when a party was in breach of a peremptory order. The claimant in breach argued that the court should consider the matter under CPR…
WITNESS EVIDENCE AND RELIABILITY: THE WITNESS WHO USED “SMART GLASSES” TO ASSIST IN GIVING ANSWERS TO CROSS-EXAMINATION
Here we have a case where the judge made clear findings that a witness had been using “smart glasses” when giving answers to cross-examination in court. It is another example of how technology can be mis-used during the trial process…
You must be logged in to post a comment.