JUDGE CALLS A FOUL: CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT BREACHED THE RULES: IF YOU ARE GOING TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH A PRACTICE DIRECTION IT MAY HELP TO READ IT BEFOREHAND…
In Greencastle MM LLP v Payne & Ors [2022] EWHC 438 (IPEC) Mr Justice Fancourt was highly critical of the way in which witness statements on behalf of a claimant had been drafted. The statements involved wholesale breaches of the…
COURT REFUSES TO MAKE AN ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR: THE DANGERS OF LEAVING SERVICE ISSUES TO THE LAST MINUTE
Another aspect of the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in SMO v Tiktok Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 489 (QB) relates to the claimant’s application to serve the claim form by alternative method. This case illustrates how difficult this order…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: TIME IS ALWAYS TICKING
There are a number of issues relating to service of the claim form in the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in SMO v Tiktok Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 489 (QB). Here we look at the judge’s refusal to grant…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED AND THOSE INVOLVED IN ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORT: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2022
There are 5 million self-employed people in the United Kingdom making up 15.5% of the workforce. A self-employed person (including directors of small companies) face particular difficulties when seeking to recover loss of earnings after being injured. Similarly those who…
JOINING A DEFENDANT THAT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED INTO AN ACTION AS A PART 20 DEFENDANT: SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES CONSIDERED
In Barclays Bank UK Public Ltd Co v London Plastic Surgeons Ltd [2021] EWHC 3698 (QB) Master McCloud considered a difficult issue relating to joinder when a defendant (who had been served) wished to bring proceedings against as defendant (who…
WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO PRESERVE DATA ON SURVILLANCE EVIDENCE IT IS IN BREACH AND THE COURT REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION
An earlier post looked at the judgment of HHJ Walden-Smith in Stannard -v- Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC). There is another aspect of that judgment which is of interest. The defendant were relying on surveillance evidence. However the…
THE COURTS WILL RARELY DETERMINE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In Stannard -v- Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC) HHJ Walden-Smith dismissed the defendant’s application that the issue of alleged fundamental dishonesty be heard as a preliminary issue and the action struck out. The judge held it was…
RESERVED JUDGMENTS: IF YOU DON’T APPLY FOR THE COSTS IN TIME THEN YOU DON’T GET THEM: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Preston v Beaumont [2022] EWHC 440 (Ch) Richard Farnhill, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, found that a successful respondent to an appeal could not recover costs. There had been a failure to comply with the…
LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD AND IS IT IMPORTANT? (A DELIBERATE REPEAT)
I first wrote about this issue in 2016. This went on to be part of a short series, such were the responses at the time. Appropriate workload is an important issue and relatively little is written about it. The issue…
NEW UPDATE TO REVIEW OF DENTON CASES: 1st MARCH 2022
Dr Rachel Segal of St John’s Chambers periodically updates a guide to cases relating to Denton and relief from sanctions. The latest edition was published on 1st March 2022 and is available here. There are around 50 new cases…
CELEBRATING ST DAVID’S DAY BY THRIVING IN THE LAW: GUIDANCE FROM (NEW SOUTH) WALES
Today being St David’s Day I was looking for some material from Wales to celebrate. I came across guidance from Young Lawyers in New South Wales. The principles set out are universal. HOW TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE This is…
COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: “LIBERTY TO APPLY” DOES NOT GIVE A GENERAL RIGHT OF REVIEW
In Helios Oryx Ltd v Trustco Group Holdings Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 236 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appellant’s application for relief from sanctions where there had been a failure to comply with a peremptory order given as a…
A PART 36 OFFER SHOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE: DEFENDANT LOOKING FOR STRAWS IN THE WIND
In FKJ v RVT & Ors [2022] EWHC 411 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld a decision that a claimant’s Part 36 offer could not be used in interlocutory proceedings. This is a decision on its own facts and the…
IMPOSING A COSTS CAP CANNOT BE A MEANS OF STIFLING LITIGATION OR ACHIEVING OTHER ENDS BY THE BACK DOOR: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
There are rules governing the citation of judgments refusing permission to appeal. However the judgment of Lord Justice Coulson in PGI Group Ltd v Thomas & Ors (Application for Permission to Appeal) [2022] EWCA Civ 233 has been put on BAILII…
COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: “THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH IS NO EMPTY FORMALITY”
In Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 230 the Court of Appeal upheld a judge’s decision not to allow the defendants permission to withdraw an admission. It is an important reminder of the quality of the…
A WITNESS GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST DRIVING A CAR: THEN FROM A CROWDED OFFICE AND THEN WITHOUT MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: THIS DOES NOT END WELL
There are passages in the judgment of Recorder Douglas Campbell QC in ASR Interiors Ltd v AWS Trading Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 372 (IPEC) which demonstrate a remarkably “relaxed” attitude to giving evidence in court by one of the…
WITNESS STATEMENTS, CPR 32 AND … SPIES: GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE SOURCE OF INFORMATION OR BELIEF
The judgment in HM Attorney General for England And Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2022] EWHC 380 (QB) relates to confidentiality and spies. It also contains some important observations on the information needed, and formal requirements, when a witness…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: LEARNING FROM RECENT CASES: WEBINAR 7th MARCH 2022
The “Proving Things” series on this blog often looks at cases relating to loss of income. Recent cases on this topic are explored in a webinar on the 7th March 2022: Claims for Loss of Earnings: Learning from Recent Cases,…
PLEADINGS, APPEALS AND THE DROP OF A HAMMER: A HIGH COURT DECISION
In SPS Groundworks & Building Ltd v Mahil [2022] EWHC 371 (QB) Mr Justice Cotter reiterated the point that statements of case are important. Any issue as to the scope of the pleadings should be determined at the outset of…
LITIGATION PRIVILEGE: WHEN DOES IT START? HOW DOES THE COURT DEAL WITH ISSUES ARISING? A HIGH COURT CASE
It is difficult to envisage a more apposite tribunal than Charles Hollander QC when matters relating to documentary evidence are in issue. This makes the reading of the decision in Kyla Shipping Co Ltd & Anor v Freight Trading Ltd…
GUIDANCE FOR ADVOCATES: 12 JUDGES CAN’T BE WRONG – “ONLY JUDGES MAY MAKE BAD JOKES”
I am here re-visiting a series of posts from 2016, where we looked at guidance given to advocates by judges. As part of the series looking at the advice that judges give to advocates (and how this relates to civil…
PROVING THINGS 226: RECOVERING INTEREST ON DISBURSEMENT LOANS: THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Corkhill in the case of Gill -v- Barnsley Canister Company Ltd, a copy of which is available here Gill v Barnsley Canister…
COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO SOLICITOR’S COSTS: SERVICE AT AN ADDRESS IN THE REGISTER IS THE PRICE OF BEING A DIRECTOR
In Farrer & Co LLP v Meyer [2022] EWHC 362 (QB) Mr Justice Kerr refused to set aside a long-standing judgment on a bill for solicitor’s costs. The judgment also considered the importance of s.1140 of the Companies Act 2006….
COSTS, FATAL ACCIDENTS: THE DUTY TO INFORM THE CLIENT OF “UNUSUAL COSTS” AND WHEN THE BUDGET IS BEING EXCEEDED
The judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in ST v ZY [2022] EWHC B5 (Costs) highlights many problem areas in relation to fatal accident litigation and the assessment of costs. In particular it is prudent to take early steps to…
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED APPEAL BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS: INADEQUATE WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONING: THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO A FAIR HEARING
In Rea & Ors v Rea [2022] EWCA Civ 195 the Court of Appeal (hearing a 2nd tier appeal) overturned a decision of the trial judge and ordered a re-trial when the appellants had not been given an opportunity to…
Children and liability: Law, practice and procedure: WEBINAR 22nd FEBRUARY 2022
This webinar looks at the law and practice relating to children as claimants and defendants. It also looks at those cases where allegations are made against those who had care of the children and vicarious liability for the acts of…
ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE SOLICITORS ACT: INTERIM BILLS, VALID BILLS AND “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES”: A DECISION ON APPEAL
The decision of HHJ Gosnell (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Richard Slade And Company Plc v Erlam [2022] EWHC 325 (QB) relates to the assessment of solicitor and own client bills. However the appeal also gave rise to…
YOU CAN’T QUIT – YOU’RE FIRED: JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIM RATHER THAN ALLOW CLAIMANTS TO DISCONTINUE
In Vale SA v Steinmetz & Ors [2022] EWHC 343 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker decided an unusual issue. Rather than allow claimants to discontinue the action he dismissed it. THE CASE The parties were part way through a trial,…
PLEADING A DEFENCE: THE DIFFICULT STATUS OF A “NON-ADMISSION”: (SOMETHING ABOUT RE-USING WITNESS STATEMENTS TOO)
In Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 322 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson found himself deciding matters relating to the pleading of the action, the scope of the trial and the admissibility of witness evidence on the…
WHEN WECHAT MESSAGES ARE LOST OR DESTROYED – BY A TWO YEAR OLD: THE ADVERSE INFERENCES A COURT CAN DRAW
In ED & F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver considered a case where Wechat messages had been “lost”. The judge concluded that the “loss” was deliberate and…
THE SOMETIMES CRUEL WORLD OF PART 36 OFFERS: INSPIRED GUESSWORK MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN A PARTY RECEIVES AN OFFER: A REMINDER OF THE CASE LAW
As part of a series of webinars by Kings Chambers Costs and Funding Group I recently recorded a webinar on Part 36 Recent cases and what they can teach us. One case, in particular, cause some comment and questions from…
DELAY IN MAKING AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM LEADS TO JOINDER BEING REFUSED (A MUCH MORE BORING TAKE ON THE VARDY -v- ROONEY CASE)
In Vardy v Rooney & Anor [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn refused the defendant’s application for joinder of an additional party. One major element in that decision was the delay in making the application, and the total absence…
WHEN THE COURT LOOKS AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN A RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: A RARE,BUT IMPORTANT, DEVELOPMENT
In Rapid Displays Inc & Anor v Ahkye & Anor [2022] EWHC 274 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a judge of the High Court) refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions. That application was heard alongside the claimant’s application…
LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: COSTS REDUCED EVEN WHEN THEY WERE ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
There are two distinct issues arising from the judgment of HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies & Ors v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation [2021] EWHC 3509 (Comm). The first relates to the…
CLAIM FAILS WHEN CLAIMANT SERVES A FIRM OF SOLICITORS AT THE WRONG ADDRESS: COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND CLAIM FORM
In Kelly v Ralli Ltd [2022] EWHC B5 (Costs) Cost Judge Rowley found that a claimant had failed to serve a claim form at the correct address. The action therefore failed. “The rules governing service are clear that it is the…
LAWYERS AS SCHOOCHILDREN IN THE PLAYGROUND: BAD-TEMPERED LITIGATION: THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: THE TAIL TO AND NOT THE DOG ITSELF
In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2022] EWHC 242 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) made some trenchant observations in relation to arguments about costs on summary assessment. The criticisms of the way that litigation…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6th APRIL 2022 (5): THE “PERSON” WHO MAY NOT BE NAMED…
A minor amendment is being made to CPR Part 39. The amendment enables any person not to be named if the court thinks this necessary. The rule is no longer confined to a party or witness. Amendment of Part 39…
WHEN DOES A LITIGANT HAVE CAPACITY? AVOIDING CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS: THE NEED FOR LEGAL ADVICE IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR
There is an interesting discussion of capacity to litigate in the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan & Ors [2021] EWFC 6. It is also worth remarking on the judge’s comments on how the expert’s evidence in…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (4): CHANGES TO STATEMENT OF VALUE ON THE CLAIM FORM IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES
The new rules reflect the fact that the small claims limit for personal injury damages now requires a figure of £1,500 for pain and suffering, there are specific provisions in relation to road traffic accidents. The rules change the statement…
WHEN AN APPELLANT FAILS TO ATTEND THEIR APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: “PARTIES CANNOT SIMPLY FAIL TO SHOW UP FOR A HEARING…”
In Leave.EU Group Ltd & Anor v The Information Commissioner [2022] EWCA Civ 109 the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate step when an appellant failed to attend an appeal. The Master of the Rolls held that the Court had…
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE 2022: LINK AND BUNDLES
The new Queen’s Bench Division Guide was published yesterday and is available here. THE CHANGES “Changes in the guide include: Interim and out of hours applications Urgent and Short Applications before the Masters Electronic bundles The procedure for issuing…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (3): THESE RULES, THEY AREN’T “NEW” ANY MORE
One small change in the rules means that they have left their infancy and, presumably, having now graduated, are entering early adulthood. THE OLD RULE CPR 1.1(1) currently reads (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding…
OH WHY ED SHEERAN CAN’T USE A STAND IN: DISCLOSURE AND THE DUTY TO SEARCH: THE SHAPE OF THINGS
In Sheeran & Ors v Chokri & Ors [2021] EWHC 3553 (Ch) Mr Justice Meade set out some of the duties owed by a litigant in relation to the disclosure process. “… Mr Sheeran’s manager undertook the disclosure exercise on…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (2): A BRAND NEW PART 12 ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT
From the 6th April 2022 onwards the existing rules in Part 12 are deleted and replaced with the new rules set out below. THE NEW PART 12 ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT The following rule totally substitutes the existing Part 12 from…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6th APRIL 2022 (1): ACKNOWLEDGING SERVICE AND THE NEW CPR PART 10
New rules are coming into force on the 6th April 2022. This is the first of a series of posts dealing with these changes. There is to be a totally new CPR Part 10, the old rule being replaced entirely…
SEEKING TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY, A FORMAL APPLICATION IS REQUIRED: OVERIDING OBJECTIVE LEADS TO REFUSAL
In JD Group Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 202 (Ch) Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello QC refused an application to adduce new evidence after a trial had ended, and judgment was pending. A formal application was required, Denton principles…
THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED
I am grateful to barrister Kriti Upadhyay for sending me copies of the judgment of Mrs Justice Foster in Greyson -v- Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB), a copy of which is available here Greyson v Fuller – HC Judgment 3-2-22…
“THERE IS A DANGER … THAT PROPORTIONATE ORDERS END UP UNDERMINING THE GENERAL RULE THAT COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT”: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT GETS 100% OF THEIR COSTS
In Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune Di Busto Arsizio [2022] EWHC 219 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill considered, and rejected, the defendant’s arguments that there should be a “proportionate” costs order. The judgment serves as a reminder of the basic…




You must be logged in to post a comment.