SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: HAVE COGENT EVIDENCE (AND A DRAFT DEFENCE) TO HAND: DEFENDANT’S DELAY ALONE WOULD HAVE LED TO APPLICATION BEING REFUSED IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
I am grateful to Barrister Leslie Keegan for their note of the judgment of Master Cook in Buckingham -v- Elneil (15th July 2022)*. The Master refused the defendant’s application to set aside a default judgment. The defendant did not have…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WHICH INVOLVED A 1.15% DISCOUNT WAS A GENUINE ONE:EVEN A NARROW MARGIN MEANS DEFENDANTS FACE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES
In Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that a claimant’s offer that was some 1.15% less than the sum awarded…
WEBINARS ON KEEPING YOUR COOL: UNDERSETTLEMENT, PROCEDURAL PITFALLS AND LIMITATION PROBLEMS: AVOIDING MATTERS HEATING UP WHEN THE HEATWAVE IS OVER
In September I am presenting a number of webinars with the theme of “avoiding problems”. These are avoiding undersettlement: avoiding procedural pitfalls and avoiding problems with limitation. “AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: A GUIDE FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS” 19th September 2022 …
APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”
In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence. The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 93: THE TIME FOR SERVING AN APPLICATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN MADE
The previous post about the judgment in AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) involved a case where the defendants had waited for two months to serve an application. This was not a critical…
DELAY IN APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: FAILURE TO BE PROMPT IS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR
In AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) Mr Justice Jacobs refused the defendants’ application to set aside a default judgment. The defendants’ delay in making the application, and then a further delay…
COST BITES 7: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS TRIED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE LITIGATION CHERRY
In Tinkler v Esken Ltd (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1802 (Ch) Mr Justice Leech ordered indemnity costs against a claimant who, in essence, attempted to relitigate a case he had lost on previously. “A principal difference between an order for…
CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT “JOB OFFER”: FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000
I am grateful to Aled Morris from Horwich Farrelly for sending me a transcript of the judgment of HHJ Murdock in Hawkins -v- Holmes (County Court at Leicester, 1st April 2022). It is a case where the court found the…
TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES … AND YOU’RE OUT
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. SEE THE LATER POST ON THE DECISION HERE. In Abbott & 3,499 Ors v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB) Master Davison rejected the claimant’s arguments that it was permissible…
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE
There were complicated factors involved in the judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch), however the action failed because the claimant was one day late in serving…
THE COURT CANNOT EXTEND TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION
A defendant is entitled to make an early Part 36 offer. This, undoubtedly causes difficulties for many claimants. The rules relating to late acceptance are fairly unsympathetic. Nor is it possible to for a claimant to make a prospective application…
A DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL CANNOT SIMPLY TURN THE CLOCK BACK: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPLICATION UNDER CPR 39.3
In Mabrouk v Murray [2022] EWCA Civ 960 the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in a case where the defendant failed to attend the trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application under CPR…
COST BITES 6: GETTING A SCHEDULE OF COSTS TO COURT
The claimant’s failure to provide costs schedules, and eventual compliance, can be seen in a series of judgments by HHJ Emma Kelly in cases brought by North Warwickshire Borough Council. The cases move from non-compliance to attempted compliance and eventual…
A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: “THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”.
One of the most imprudent things to do in litigation is to let a court order be made, not comply and then respond by arguing that the order should never have been made anyway. We see an example of this…
THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AN ISSUE “DESTINED TO LIVE OUT ITS LITIGATION LIFE IN A LIMBO OF OBITER OBSERVATIONS”
The judgment of Mr Justice Foxton in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano [2022] EWHC 1544 (Comm) serves of a salutary reminder (to some) of the existence of the automatic stay in civil proceedings. A claimant…
NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
In the final post of this series I have chosen a post from January 2022. There are many common themes on this blog: relief from sanctions; service of the claim form; Part 36; witness statements, among them. However it is…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION TO STRIKE OUT “UNMANAGEABLE” COURT PROCEEDINGS
In Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 951 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to strike out a claim. The Court doubted whether an action could ever be described…
PERSONAL SERVICE EFFECTIVE WHEN DOCUMENTS PUT THROUGH THE DOOR OF A LETTERBOX: THE FOCUS IS ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECIPIENT
In Field v Del Vecchio [2022] EWHC 1117 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) considered whether committal proceedings had been properly served. The papers had been put through a letterbox in a flat when the defendant…
DEFENDANTS DEBARRED FROM DEFENDING A CLAIM CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL: “DEBARRING ORDERS SHOULD MEAN WHAT THEY SAY”
In Financial Conduct Authority v London Property Investments & Ors [2022] EWHC 1041 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower considered whether a defendant, debarred from participating in proceedings, could play any part in the trial of those proceedings. It also highlights…
NINE YEARS ON VIII: 2021: ADVICE FOR LAWYERS GOING ON HOLIDAY
In August 2021 the post “Lawyers and Holidays: Avoiding Stress – Advice from all over the world” proved a popular topic. This is a good time of year to repeat it. THE POST FROM 2021 This is the time of…
RESPONDENTS TO AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: YOU SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY WRITTEN A LETTER AND SAVED YOURSELVES £67,000
In over three decades of writing about civil procedure I cannot recall any cases about costs following a permission to appeal hearing. There are now two cases this week. In Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1757 (QB)…
FIXED COSTS OUSTED WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE COSTS ARE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A DETAILED ASSESSMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Doyle -v- M&D Foundations & Building Services Limited [2022] EWCA CIV 927 the Court of Appeal found that it was possible for parties to contract out of the fixed costs provisions of the protocols. THE…
NINE YEARS ON VII: 2020: TWO LITIGATORS WHO ARE SORELY MISSED
2020 was a very strange year for us all. In March the Covid problems started to hit and, for many months, this blog dealt primarily with issues relating to litigation and lockdown. The busiest day ever on this blog was…
COST BITES 5: COSTS IN THE CASE APPROPRIATE ONCE A CLAIMANT HAD DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TO SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Chiswick International Holdings Ltd v Oakvest Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 799 (Comm) HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the appropriate order for costs when a party had offered security in an application for security…
NINE YEARS ON VI: 2019: ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LAWYER: THE GOOD STUFF ABOUT BEING A LITIGATOR – FROM NICE LAWYERS
I am selecting a post from 2019 and we are now looking at one made with a little help from my friends. I started a series on “Advice to a Newly Qualified Litigator”. The fourth in the series was a…
DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS DO NOT EXTEND TO DEFENDANTS: “HEADS I WIN TAILS YOU LOSE” ARRANGEMENTS DO NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Candey Ltd v Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 936 the Court of Appeal held that a Damages Based Agreement cannot be used between a solicitor and a defendant who did not have a counterclaim. For a…
COST BITES 4: COURT OVERTURNED NON-PARTY AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITY IN CHILDREN CASE
In Peterborough City Council v K, L, M, N and P & Ors [2022] EWFC 61Mr Justice Poole overturned a decision making a non-party costs against a local authority. A non-party costs order could not be used as a device…
COST BITES 3: PRO BONO COSTS ORDERS EXTENDED TO TRIBUNALS
Pro bono cost orders have been extended to tribunals. The position is explained in a short post by the Access to Justice Foundation. The ability to make such orders has been extended to tribunals. GUIDANCE FROM THE ACCESS…
NINE YEARS ON V: 2018: THE GARDEN THAT COST A LOT: CLAIMANTS SOUGHT £360,000 – AND RECEIVED NOTHING… EXCEPT A BILL FOR £2 MILLION
A prominent QC tweeted recently that, when he was waiting for a court judgment to be delivered, his greatest fear was that the case would end up in the “Proving Things” series on this blog. Today we look a post…
COURT EXTENDS TIME TO BRING HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: MINOR CLAIMANTS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR
In CJ & Ors Wiltshire Police [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer extended the limitation period in a claim under the Human Rights Act. Although the claimants were ultimately unsuccessful there are important observations in relation to the…
COST BITES 2: A (PROSPECTIVE) RESPONDENT DOES NOT GET THE COSTS OF ATTENDING PERMISSION TO APPEAL HEARING
In Novartis AG & Anor v Teva UK Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 775 Lord Justice Birss refused to order costs when a respondent to an appeal attended at a permission to appeal hearing. THE CASE The judge heard…
COST BITES 1: USE OF A PARTNER IN A BOUTIQUE FIRM CAN LEAD TO LOWER COSTS
There are many cases in which judges make observations about costs which merit wider circulation. This series looks at those kinds of matters. It starts by looking at the observations of Mr Justice Foxton in Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd…
NINE YEARS ON V: 2017: THE CLAIMANT THAT TURNED DOWN A PART 36 OFFER OF £1.5 MILLION AND GOT £2 INSTEAD: A LESSON FOR LITIGANTS WITH MOUTHS TOO WIDE
Choosing one case from each year is not an easy task. We have reached 2017 and I have selected two posts which relate to the same case. A claimant sought damages of £15 million but failed to prove it had…
WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHO DID NOT ENSURE THAT THEY HAD APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY
In Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1687 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors who had acted for a limited company without…
NINE YEARS ON IV: 2016: BEING LEGALLY STREETWISE: WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU IN LAW SCHOOL
Continuing with the selection of post from each year of the blog I have reproduced below a post from February 2016. This post was unusual in that I saw a post from a firm of solicitors, Darlingtons, and asked permission…
SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT BILLS AND CONDUCT: CPR 44.11 DOES NOT APPLY: REDUCTION OF 75% OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
In John Poyser & Co Ltd -v- Spencer [2022] EWHC 1678 (QB) Mr Justice Morris (sitting with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker as an assessor) overturned a finding that CPR 44.11 applies to solicitor and own client assessments. The practical result…
NOTICE OF APPEAL LODGED AFTER 4.30 LODGED IN TIME: THE COMMERCIAL COURT GUIDE CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PRACTICE DIRECTION
I am grateful to Aidan Robertson QC for sending me a copy of the decision of Civil Appeals Officer Master Bancroft-Rimmer in the case of Microsoft Corporation -v- JJH Enterprises. It relates to the interplay of the Commercial Court Guide…
NINE YEARS ON III: 2015: WITNESS STATEMENTS – WHO SAYS YOU’LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS
My, highly personal, selection of posts from each year moves on to 2015. Here we look at a blog post from February 2015 about the decision in Woodland and Maxwell. This is a case that was subject to much interlocutory…
DIRE ISSUES ARISE WHEN AN EXPERT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO THE JOINT MEETING: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE
I have written before about the decision of Senior Master Fontaine in Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Ltd [2022] EWHC 479 (QB) where the claimants permission to rely on an expert witness was withdrawn because of conduct in relation to…
PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED IN EDWARDS COSTS CASE: THE TEST FOR A SECOND APPEAL WERE NOT SATISFIED
In May I reported on the decision in Edwards (& others) -v- Slater and Gordon UK Limited [2022] EWHC 1091. There was an application for permission to appeal that judgment. Permission was refused. Full details can be found here THE CASE…
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO FILE A BUDGET DISCUSSION REPORT: A CASE TO CONSIDER
I am grateful to Jodie Davis from Irwin Mitchell for sending me a note of a judgment given in a case relating to non-service of the Budget discussion report. The note is reproduced in full below. There is an interesting…
NINE YEARS ON 2: “DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS : THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WILL DETERMINE THE ANSWERS YOU GET: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE”
I am “reprinting” a post from every year that this blog has been going. Today we have reached 2014. A post on drafting witness statements and the asking of leading questions. This is an ongoing issue. The drastic measures introduced…
NINE YEARS ON 1: SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THE IMPECUNIOUS AND UNINSURED DEFENDANT?
People were very kind about the 9th anniversary of the blog. I have decided to extend the celebrations slightly by taking a post from each of the nine years. This was the second ever post on the 25th June 2013. …
QOCS APPLIES TO LEGALLY AIDED CASES: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Macaulay v Karim & Anor [2022] EWHC 1270 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker found that a legally aided claimant had the protection of QOCS. A defendant who had a costs order in its favour could not enforce that order…
A BIT MORE ABOUT HOURLY RATES: TWO NATIONS?
This morning we looked at the case of EVX v Smith [2022] EWHC 1607 (SCCO), a case about hourly rates. The costs judge making an observation that £315 – £320 an hour was the appropriate rate for a Grade A fee…
HOURLY RATES AGREED WITH LITIGATION FRIEND ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW: THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WHEN A SHORTFALL IN RECOVERABLE COSTS IS SOUGHT FROM A CLAIMANT
In EVX v Smith [2022] EWHC 1607 (SCCO) Costs Judge Brown held that the hourly rates charged by a solicitor to their own client are subject to review when the court is considering the amount that the claimant should pay…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: A FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE BASIC RULES IS OFTEN A SIGN OF MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS…
We are looking at another aspect of the judgment of HHJ Pearce in Pitalia & Anor v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 1636_2 (QB). The judge took the time to note that none of the claimant’s witness statements complied with…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF OVER SERVICE OF AN UNSEALED CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT,HOWEVER, SAVED BY CPR 3.10.
In Pitalia & Anor v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 1636_2 (QB) His Honour Judge Pearce dismissed a claimant’s appeal in a case where the claim form had not been validly served. The defendant had made an error in that…
NINE YEARS OF BLOGGING: 9th ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (AS A BLOG)
This blog has now reached its 9th year. I have resisted the temptation to do a full scale review (I’m saving that for the 10th). I am just looking at edited highlights. FACTS AND FIGURES There are 4,761 posts on…
THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER 2: THERE WAS NO MISCONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANTS, HOWEVER THE COSTS OF ARGUING ABOUT CONDUCT WERE NOT ALLOWED
In Balaj & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1627 (SCCO) Costs Judge James considered, and rejected, the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s conduct should lead to costs being reduced. However the costs of the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.