FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES AND THE CHOUZA CASE (2): WHO IS A DEPENDANT?
This is the second post in a detailed examination of the judgment in Chouza v Martins & Ors [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB). Here the we look at the position as to whether adult children were in fact “dependants” entitled to…
CASES IN THE ASBESTOS LIST ARE NOT SUBJECT TO COSTS BUDGETING: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS…
In Smith v W Ford & Sons (Contractors) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1749 (QB) Master Davison refused a defendant’s application that costs budgeting take place in a case that was in the Asbestos list. “These listing arrangements cannot accommodate costs budgeting….
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE: SENIOR COURT COSTS OFFICE DECISION TODAY
In Acupay System LLC v Stephenson Harwood LLP [2021] EWHC B11 (Costs) Costs Judge Leonard rejected a claimant’s argument that a conditional fee agreement it had entered into with a solicitor was unfair, unreasonable and not supported by consideration. (There…
APPLYING TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: A DRAFT DEFENCE IS NOT MANDATORY, BUT ITS ABSENCE MAY WELL BE TELLING
In Alli-Balogun v On the Beach Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1702 (QB) Mr Justice Jacobs considered the relevant criteria for a party seeking to set aside a default judgment on the merits. The defendant in this case did not…
TRANSCRIBERS, LIVE RECORDING AND COURT HEARINGS: COURT SENDS OUT A WARNING: FOLLOW THE RULES AND GET PERMISSION IN ADVANCE
In JR & B Farming Limited v Hewitt [2021] EWHC 1704 (Comm) HH- Davis-White QC (sitting as a High Court judge) issued a clear warning to parties and transcription services that they must follow the correct procedure if a record…
FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES AND THE CHOUZA CASE (1): THE “PERCENTAGE” DEPENDENCY CLAIM
It is rare for fatal accident dependency cases to reach trial. A detailed examination of many aspects of fatal accident damages was carried by Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Chouza v Martins & Ors [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB). This is…
IF YOU HAVE GOT ISSUES WITH DISCLOSURE YOU SHOULD HAVE SORTED THESE OUT WELL BEFORE TRIAL: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Chouza v Martins & Ors [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB) contains much of interest and importance to anyone involved in fatal accident litigation. Indeed I will be writing a series of posts on…
EIGHT YEARS OF BLOGGING: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD
Today marks the 8th anniversary of Civil Litigation Brief as a blog. This may be an appropriate time to look back and consider some “facts and figure” FACTS AND FIGURES Last year the blog had 1,464,443 views and 505,431 visitors…
THE COPYING OF TRIAL BUNDLES: WHO PAYS THE PRICE?
In the judgment today in Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) had to determine an issue in relation to who pays the costs of copying a trial…
Commencing Assessment Proceedings, Default Certificates and Drafting Points of Dispute: Where does it all go wrong? Webinar 30th June 2021
Kings Chambers is presenting a webinar on the 30th June 2021 about avoiding problems in the assessment of costs process and the effective drafting of points of dispute. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR In Grekor Fisken Ltd -v-…
CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM IN TIME: SECOND REMINDER TODAY THAT LITIGATION CAN SOMETIMES BE HARSH AND BRUTAL
In M/S Unique Part Trading LLC & Anor v Regal Lodge Road Ltd [2020] EWHC 3871 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles upheld an order striking out an action because the Particulars of Claim were served late. It is a reminder of…
“THE SOMETIMES HARSH, EVEN BRUTAL, DEFAULT CONSEQUENCES OF 36.17 MUST BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE”: RECOVER £10 IN DAMAGES AND STILL GET COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
In Shah & Anor v Shah & Anor [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld the decision of the trial judge that the defendants should bear the normal Part 36 consequences when the claimants had made a Part…
“THERE COMES A POINT WHEN APOLOGIES ARE NOT ENOUGH”: LATE APPLICATIONS IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
In University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v Miss K [2021] EWCOP 40 Mrs Justice Lieven observed that applications, made very late in the day, by hospital trusts, cause considerable disruption. (The blunt reality here, however, is that…
CARE CLAIMS IN PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 25th JUNE 2021
On the 25th June 2021 I am presenting a webinar on Care Claims in personal injury actions. Booking details are available here. This webinar looks at claims for care, the law underpinning care and assistance claims, looking at practical…
THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A “NEAR MISS” OFFER IS NOT ENOUGH
In Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC B5 (Costs) Deputy Costs Judge Campbell rejected an argument that a “different order” for costs should be made following an assessment of costs. The paying party had made…
THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT: HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH “ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK”
In Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the “nightmare position” the courts are now in as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to interpreting European Directives. This…
“THE PROVISION OF THE CPR FOR SERVICE… SHOULD BE FAMILIAR TO EVERY SOLICITOR WHO CONDUCTS LITIGATION… THE MULTIPLE ERRORS MADE IN PURPORTING TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH A LITTLE DILIGENCE”
Although issues of service are a regular feature on this blog I cannot recall many cases about mis-service of Notice of Commencement of a Bill of Costs. There have been several recently. The claimant failed to serve properly in Gregor…
COURT REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE RESPONDENT’S NOTICE LATE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
There is a separate aspect of the decision of Mr Justice Lavender in SGI Legal LLP v Karatysz [2021] EWHC 1608 (QB) that warrants attention, the judge’s refusal to extend time for service of a respondent’s notice. “The purpose of a…
DEDUCTION OF LEGAL FEES FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: SOLICITORS SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL
The decision of Mr Justice Lavender in SGI Legal LLP v Karatysz [2021] EWHC 1608 (QB) is part of the long, and continuing, battle relating to the deduction of legal fees by solicitors from claimant’s damages. In this case the…
LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: WEBINAR 18th JUNE 2021
On the 18th June 2021 I am presenting a webinar on loss of earnings claims. The material includes a client questionnaire in relation to loss of earnings and income. Booking details are available here. TOPICS COVERED BY THE…
AWARDS FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: NO GREATER AMOUNT IF YOU ARE RICH: A BLAST FROM THE PAST (64 YEARS TO BE PRECISE)
Often this blog covers judgments on the day they were made. Today, however, we are going back 64 years to 1957 looking at the case of Dunhill -v- Lumby reported on the 1st February 1957 in the Times. WHY THIS…
“THERE IS A WORRYING TREND… IN TERMS OF FAILURE BY EXPERTS GENERALLY IN LITIGATION COMPLYING WITH THEIR DUTIES”
There is an important point about a litigant’s responsibility for the conduct of their own experts (and expert’s conduct generally) in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd (No. 2 Costs) [2021] EWHC 1414 (TCC). This was…
WITNESS STATEMENTS & HILLSBOROUGH (A REPEAT II): CONFIRMATION BIAS AT ITS WORST
The tragic events of Hillsborough are in the news again. I am here repeating a post first written in 2016. The post is on one small part of the process: the initial gathering of evidence. It was the flawed nature…
NO NEED TO CALL CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL EXPERT IN A FAST TRACK TRIAL: MUST BE A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE NORMAL PROCEDURE
I am grateful to Claire Haley from Aegis Legal for sending me a copy of the judgement of HHJ Freedman in Taylor -v- TUI UK Limited (County Court at Newcastle 22nd January 2021). The judge overturned a decision that the…
CLAIMANTS WIDE RANGING EVIDENCE EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In BB & Ors v Al Khayyat & Ors [2021] EWHC 1499 (QB) Mr Justice Chamberlain allowed, in part, an application by a defendant that certain evidence put forward by the claimants in relation to an application be excluded. THE…
MORE ON MULTIPLE INJURIES, THE TARIFF AND TEST CASES
Official Injuries Claims have issued a release explaining the approach to test cases and multiple injuries. This explains the collaborative approach being adopted to find test cases in claims where the injuries fall inside and outside the tariff scheme. “neither…
MULTIPLE INJURIES AND THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2018: CROSS-SECTOR WORKING GROUP WORKING ON IT
An earlier post dealt with the issues relating to multiple injuries in personal injury cases where a claimant suffered multiple injuries and some of those injuries are subject to the statutory tariff scheme whilst others are not. This is clearly…
TAKE CARE: THE SOLICITOR SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON MATTERS WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE “DIRECTLY UNTRUE”
I am picking up another point from the judgment in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd (No. 2 Costs) [2021] EWHC 1414 (TCC). That is the care that must be taken when a solicitor signs a statement…
ARGUING THAT A CONVICTION FOLLOWING A GUILTY PLEA WAS WRONG: GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Munir v Revenue And Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 799 the Court of Appeal considered the steps available to a litigant who wished to argue that a criminal conviction was erroneous. In particular a litigant most probably needs to waive…
COURT OF APPEAL ENCOURAGES LITIGANTS TO GET INTO GEAR ON LISTS OF ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR MEDIATION
In Gregor Fisken Ltd v Carl [2021] EWCA Civ 792 the Court of Appeal made observations about two issues: the drafting of a list of issues; the failure to consider mediation. “It appears that the list of issues agreed by…
BUNDLES IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS: THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY AND IN CATEGORIES
Issues relating to bundles are a regular theme on this blog. There is a short postscript to the judgment of Master Clark in Hudman v Morris [2021] EWHC 1400 (Ch), where observations were made following a Part 8 hearing relating…
MEDICAL AGENCY COSTS NOT RECOVERABLE IN FIXED COSTS REGIME: REPORT OF A DECISION
I am grateful to Simon Fisher of DWF for sending me a copy of the decision of Deputy District Judge Akers in Powles -v- Hemmings, a decision on the 23rd April 2021, a copy of which is available here Powles…
APPLICATIONS BY EMAIL: JUDGES SHOULD BE ALERT AND THE PROCESS PROCEDURALLY FAIR: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
There are some case where the parties attempt to litigate by correspondence, particularly correspondence with the court. Letters and emails proliferate, with no real structure. The rules of evidence, and the difference between “facts”, “arguments” and “submissions” are usually entirely…
CLAIMANTS RECOVER NO COSTS AT ALL WHEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WERE “DIRECTLY UNTRUE”: ALSO LIABLE FOR INDEMNITY COSTS FOR A PERIOD
This blog has looked twice at the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1116 (TCC). There is now a sequel. In Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting…
GUIDANCE AS TO BUNDLES FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: THE PDF PAGE SHOULD MATCH THE BUNDLE PAGE (SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE QUITE RARE IN PRACTICE)
The Practice Direction on Administrative Court Bundle Guidance is available here. One thing it notes (and this appears to be a widespread issue for many e-bundles) is the need for the index to be counted in the page numbering. In…
HILLSBOROUGH AND WITNESS STATEMENTS 1 (A REPEAT): THE INITIAL PROCESS AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
This is a repeat of a post first written on this blog in April 2016. There is always a danger in writing about a tragedy that the human consequences, the pain and suffering of the victims and family members are…
LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT”
Over the years we have seen some biting judgments about the conduct of experts in civil litigation. I struggle to recall one as extraordinary as the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: HILLSBOROUGH AND THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITOR
The previous post on this blog presented what is most probably the first academic research into the taking of witness statements. It is remarkable that such a central part of the lawyer’s role remains unresearched. The blunt reality is that…
RESEARCH INTO THE TAKING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A POST FROM PROFESSOR PENNY COOPER AND DR MICHELLE MATTISON
A recent High Court decision emphasised that all legal cases are, in reality, all about the facts. Despite that there is very little research into the role of the judge as fact finder. There is even less research on the…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLAIM FOR SEXUAL ABUSE: DISCRETION EXERCISED WHEN PROCEEDINGS ISSUED 15 YEARS OUTSIDE THE LIMITATION PERIOD
In AB v Chethams School of Music [2021] EWHC 1419 (QB) Mr Justice Fordham provides a comprehensive review of the principles the court considers when hearing an application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, particularly in the context…
RETROSPECTIVE VALIDATION OF SERVICE, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE AND THE SETTING ASIDE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
In YA II PN Ltd v Frontera Resources Corporation [2021] EWHC 1380 (Comm) Mr Justice Butcher considered the question of whether a default judgment was regular when the court had, retrospectively, validated service of the claim form. He found that…
DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2021
A post yesterday highlighted the uncertainties and complexities in relation to awards for pain and suffering where a claimant suffered multiple injuries some inside and some outside the statutory tariff scheme. This highlights the need for lawyers to understand precisely…
WHEN DOES THE LIMITATION PERIOD START TO RUN WHEN A BARRISTER GIVES TWO ADVICES?
In Sciortino v Beaumont [2021] EWCA Civ 786 the Court of Appeal allowed a claimant’s appeal against a finding that a negligence action against a barrister was statute barred. Although this is a case about limitation and negligence it has…
DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM ADMISSIONS REFUSED: NO EVIDENCE THAT DEFENCE WAS NOT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEGAL ADVISERS WITH THE DEFENDANTS
The judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Financial Conduct Authority v Skinner & Ors [2019] EWHC 392 has only recently arrived on BAILLI. It is an example of the court refusing to allow a party to withdraw from admissions. The…
HOW MUCH IS AN ARM AND A NECK? THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING IN MULTIPLE INJURY CASES AFTER THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2018
The “whiplash” element of Civil Liability Act 2018 comes into force on the 31st May 2021. This introduces fixed tariff sums for damages for pain and suffering in certain road traffic claims where there has been a “whiplash” injury. A…
DIRECT AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR SELF-EMPLOYED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS WORKING WITHIN A PRACTICE: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN HER ARGUMENTS
I am grateful to Heather Owen from the Dental Law Partnership for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Harrison in Breakingbury -v- Croad (Cardiff County Court 19th April 2021), a copy of which is available here …
STATEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE POST-PANDEMIC: FOUR BARS ISSUE A WARNING
In a document issued on the 5th May the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Bar of Ireland, the Bar Council of Northern Ireland and the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland sent out an important message about post-pandemic hearings. …
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OUST FIXED COSTS: £350,000 CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN IN THE PORTAL
I am grateful to barrister Sarah Robson for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Jackson in Jackson -v- Barfoot Farms (Canterbury County Court 29th November 2017, a copy of which is available here Jackson v Barfoot). …
IN THE MIDNIGHT HOUR – THE SUPREMES’ VERSION: WHEN DOES THE LIMITATION PERIOD START TO RUN? (“WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES”)
Regular readers of this blog would reasonably suppose that lawyers like to live dangerously – leaving tasks to the last minute (and sometimes beyond). An example of this can be seen in the judgment today in Matthew & Ors v…
CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL IN APPLICATION FOR NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE: THEY “SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE APPLICATION IN THE FIRST PLACE”
In Sparkes v London Pension Funds Authority & Anor [2021] EWHC 1265 (QB) Mr Justice Murray allowed an appeal and made an order for non-party disclosure in favour of a claimant. There are few appellate decisions in relation to non-party…
You must be logged in to post a comment.