THE KIMATHI DECISION 5: REVIEW OF SECTION 33 PRINCIPLES: WHY LIMITATION WASN’T HEARD FIRST
This is the fifth in the series that looks at the decision of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The judgment contains a useful review and survey of Section 33 and…
A MONTREAL CONVENTION CLAIM DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PORTAL: FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY
I am grateful to Peter Bland from Scott Rees, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the decision in Mead -v- British Airways Plc*. Mead v BA template – Final 15 August 2018 (1)This considers the issue of whether a…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL
Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything. Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”. Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…
CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED
In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert. The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 4: THE APPROACH TO WITNESS EVIDENCE: MEMORIES ARE FLUID AND MALLEABLE: SOME KEY POINTS ON GESTMIN
This is the fourth in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The trial judge was looking at evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years earlier,…
PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE: A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE
Many cases rest on the credibility of witnesses. A detailed examination can be found in the judgment of HH Judge Saggerson (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Hibberd-Little v Carlton [2018] EWHC 1787 (QB). There are issues here in relation…
YOU’VE STARTED SO YOU’LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER
In Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley & Anor [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB) Master Davison set aside the claimant’s notice of discontinuance made after reading the defendant’s additional written submissions after a hearing. The notice of discontinuance was viewed as “tactical….
DEBARRED PARTY CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE AT TRIAL: WHAT ROLE CAN A DEBARRED PARTY PLAY AT TRIAL?
In Kliers v Schmerler & Anor [2018] EWHC 1350 (Ch) Mr M H Rosen QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the defendant’s application that it be allowed to cross-examine the claimant even after it had been debarred from…
LAWYERS (& OTHERS) – WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN
In the judgment today in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email marked “Legally Privileged and Confidential” did not have the protection of professional privilege. The judgment also shows…
DEALING WITH THE ARCH ENEMY: EVERY LITIGATOR’S BUGBEAR
Some of the ideas for this blog come from the legal community on Twitter. This evening there was a discussion about the virtues of instructions that arrive in numerous emails versus the problematic (and usually broken) arch lever file. Last…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 3: THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS, STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRES AND THE USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS
This is the third in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at the evidence gathering process, in particular the use of questionnaires and the…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, ACCURATE EVIDENCE AND A REMARKABLE CHANGE OF ACCOUNT BY THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS
The judgment in Britchford v Staffordshire And Stoke-On-Trent Partnership NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2109 (QB) is another example of a clinical negligence claim that rested on the accuracy of medical evidence. A feature of the case is that the claimant did…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 2: TRANSLATORS ON TRIAL: ALSO A LOOK AT THE GUIDANCE ON TRANSLATING WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the second in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at issues relating to the translators. It shows the way in which the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DATE OF ISSUE FOR LIMITATION” PURPOSES AND THE “DATE OF ISSUE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE
There were a number of search terms which led people to this blog today that related to the date of service and date of issue. The confusion is, perhaps, easy to understand The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date…
RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS
The Court of Appeal decision in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 is in relation to procedure in the Employment Tribunal. However there are two points in the judgment that are of general importance to civil practitioners. …
THE KIMATHI DECISION 1: PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE
The judgment in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) came after a trial that commenced in May 2016 and lasted until June 2018. It contained a whole range of issues in relation to procedure…
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM REFUSED: CLAIMANT’S CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT GOES UP IN SMOKE…
In Viner -v- Volkswagen Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2006 (QB) Senior Master Fontaine refused the claimants’ application to extend time for service of the claim form. A link to the judgment is available from the Law Society Gazette article on…
FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO “MIXED CLAIMS”: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
In The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018] EWHC 2046 (Admin) Mrs Justice Whipple held that a claim against the police for misuse of data, misfeasance in public office and misuse of private information, did not give rise…
CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST: EDITING STATEMENTS CAN AFFECT CREDIBILITY
The judgment case of ML (A Child) v Guy’s And St Thomas’ National Healthcare Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2010 has an interesting passage on witness statements. It is an example of how early witness statements that were not initially disclosed can…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS
In Hertel & Anor v Saunders & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an offer made was not a valid Part 36 offer. It was held that a Part 36 offer had to be…