INSOLVENCY AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER: WEBINAR 29th JANUARY 2021
There have been several features on this blog about the problems that insolvency causes to personal injury litigants. Both in terms of the claimant being bankrupt and also the difficulties in pursuing insolvent defendants. These issues are looked at in…
“SADLY, THIS IS AN ALL-TOO-COMMON FAILURE IN WITNESS STATMENTS PROVIDED IN CIVIL LITIGATION”
The comments of Mr Justice Murray today in Guest Supplies Intl Ltd v South Place Hotel Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3307 (QB) repeat what has been mentioned numerous times on this blog. “It will perhaps be seen from…
INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO AVOID EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY POLICY: A RESULT THAT IS “DEFECTIVE AND UNFAIR”
The judgment of Master Davison in Komives v Hick Lane Bedding Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3288 (QB) highlights an area of law which, as the Master stated, is “defective an unfair”- an insurer was entitled to avoid an employer’s…
DEFENDANT’S LIABLE TO PAY INJURED SOLDIER FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS AFTER HE HAS TO HANG UP HIS BOOTS
There is much that is interesting to read in the judgment of David Lock QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB). One interesting point is the defendant’s interesting,…
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE PRESSED FOR TIME
I am looking again at the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC in Cohen v Fine & Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch) a because, in concentrating on the issues relating to hourly rates, the other important part of the judgment may…
HOURLY RATES ALLOWED SHOULD BE INCREASED, AT LEAST, BY INFLATION: APPEAL AGAINST SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS ALLOWED.
I am grateful to Sean Linley for drawing my attention to the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC in Cohen v Fine & Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch).That judgment has some interesting things to say in relation to current hourly rates…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY
It must be disheartening for parties who get to trial to find that the judge does not think that the “experts” they have instructed (at great cost) are not regarded by the courts as experts at all. This is exactly…
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 4: PART 2: GET TO THE POINT QUICKLY
There are many posts on this blog under the “Judge’s guide to advocacy” series. Today’s post is based on a single tweet. The tweeter known as “Judgitis” wants people to get to the point quickly. THE TWEET Judge Itis@ItisJudge “If…
THE FIFTH LEGAL CHRISTMAS MUSIC CONTEST 2020: BECOME A LYRIC WRITER AND GET RECORDED: SUPPORTING FOOD BANKS
The Legal Christmas Music contest is back, for the fifth year running. All that is required to enter is that you make, or agree you will make, a donation to a food bank: after that is (as ever) down to…
“PROCEDURAL RIGOUR IS IMPORTANT NOT FOR ITS OWN SAKE. IT IS IMPORTANT IN ORDER FOR JUSTICE TO BE DONE”
In R v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Secretary of State for Education ex parte Dolan and Others. [2020] EWCA Civ 1605 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that the “lockdown” regulations were unlawful. However,…
A BARRISTER OF “GOOD JUDGEMENT”: WHEN THE PERSON WHO USUALLY DOES THE CROSS-EXAMINING IS IN THE WITNESS BOX
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Torrance v Bradberry [2020] EWHC 3260 (QB) is one that should be read by every practising lawyer. It is a case of a lawyer as defendant, being accused of negligence in their conduct…
“WHEN MUST AN UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANT ACCEPT “NO” FOR AN ANSWER?”: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Wingfield, R (on the application of) v Canterbury City Council & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1588 the Court of Appeal considered the provisions of CPR 52.30 which provide an extremely limited chance of persuading a court to reconsider a…
PROVING THINGS 189: IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THE DEPTH OF SOMETHING – TAKE A RULER (OH, AND PHOTOGRAPHS)
In Nash v Hertfordshire County Council [2020] EWHC 3247 (QB) HHJ Lickley QC, sitting as judge of the High Court, dismissed the claimant’s claim for damages. There were numerous witnesses and expert involved. “They took photographs when they were at…
IT’S NOT YOUR OPPONENT’S JOB TO POINT OUT OMISSIONS IN YOUR OWN EVIDENCE: A CLOSER LOOK AT ONE ASPECT OF PJSC TATNEFT
One particular aspect of the judgment in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm) that warrants closer investigation. That is the claimant’s argument that it did not have notice that the defendants were going to invite the court…
CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON NEW WITNESS STATEMENT SERVED PART-WAY THROUGH A TRIAL: LATE WITNESSES COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PLUG GAPS
In PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the claimant’s application for permission to rely on new evidence which was served in the middle of a trial. Not only is this a consideration…
HOW TO LOSE A CASE: SILKY GUIDANCE: IGNORE THE FACTS (THAT ALWAYS HELPS)
Today I am encouraging you to read one of the most authoritative and witty articles I have read about being involved in the civil litigation process. How to Lose a Case is a post by Edmund King QC on the…
WHY AN EXPERT WITNESS MUST EXAMINE THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: WHY MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NORMALLY THE KEY
There are several short passages in the judgment of HHJ Baucher in Ali v The Home Office [2020] EW Misc 27 (CC) which emphasises the need for expert witnesses to consider the objective evidence before reporting. It also shows the…
A PANDEMIC DOESN’T STOP YOU TICKING A BOX: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION REFUSED
In Glenn v Kline [2020] EWHC 3182 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of an application for judgement in default of acknowledgement of service. The reasons provided by the defendant, including COVID, did not provide…
INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WAS EXAMINED: IN ADDITION THERE IS GOING TO BE A SECOND MATCH…
In Shearer v Neal [2020] EWHC 3148 (QB) Deputy Master Hill QC ordered that a debtor pay costs on the indemnity basis after she heard a Part 71 hearing. The case was also remitted to the High Court Judge on…
PROVING THINGS 188: PROVING A WARNING WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE: PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CRICKET BALL LOSES CASE ON APPEAL
In Lewis v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3205 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart overturned a decision in favour of claimant who had been struck by a cricket ball whilst walking near a cricket pitch. “… the defendant was…