DEFENDANT NOT PERMITTED TO PLEAD FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ON A SPECULATIVE OR CONTINGENT BASIS
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) Master Davison refused a defendant’s application to amend its defence to plead fundamental dishonesty on a “contingent” basis. The judgment deals with important issues as to how a defendant must…
GENERAL RESPONSE IN A REPLY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN ADMISSION: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lancer Property Assets Management Ltd & Ors (Claimant amendment application) (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 750 (Ch) Mr Robin Vos (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division) rejected an argument that a…
DEFENDANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN THERE WAS £92 MILLION AT STAKE: DENTON CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
When I wrote earlier about the decision in Various Claimants v G4S Plc [2021] EWHC 524 (Ch) I noted that it required more than one post. Here we look at the judge’s decision in relation to relief from sanctions. Relief was…
YOU CANNOT USE A REPLY TO PLEAD MATTERS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
About ten minutes ago I sent off the material for a webinar I am giving tomorrow on drafting statements of case. Inevitably, therefore, a new and relevant case arrived on BAILLI* [the material was subsequently amended to include this] . …
RULE CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE IN APRIL 2021(1): VULNERABLE WITNESSES AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE
There are some rule changes coming into force in April this year, introduced by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021, these come into force on the 6th April 2021. AMENDMENT TO THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE The new rules are referred to,…
CLAIMANTS SUED THE WRONG (NON-EXISTENT) DEFENDANT – AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD HAD EXPIRED: DON’T START BREAKING THE CROCKERY JUST YET
In The 52 Occupiers of the Ceramic Works v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 17 (TCC) District Judge Baldwin considered an application to substitute a defendant after the primary limitation period had expired. The judge, if anything,…
AMENDING YOUR CASE AND PAYING THE COSTS: JUDGE ORDERS CLAIMANT TO PAY £100,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS
The judgment of Mr Justice Pepperall in R.G. Carter Projects Ltd v CUA Property Ltd [2020] EWHC 3417 (TCC) is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly it encapsulates the principle that a party amending their pleadings must normally pay…
CORONAVIRUS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: THE PRACTICE DIRECTION ENDS TOMORROW: REVIEW OF THE CASES
Practice Direction 51ZA which allows parties to extend time limits for up to 56 days comes to an end on the 30th October 2020. Unless there is a further rule change then parties can only agree extensions of 28 days. …
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES STRUCK OUT: APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED: CLAIMANT FAILED TO USE THEIR LOAF AS CLAIM IS SLICED…
The judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford in The Leicester Bakery (Holdings) Ltd v Ridge And Partners LLP [2020] EWHC 2430 (TCC) shows the necessity of being able to particularise a claim for damages. What it demonstrates is that, in claims…
LETTER STATING THAT THE DEFENDANT CONSENTED TO SOME AMENDMENTS DID NOT OUST COURT’S JURISDICTION: TRY TO AMEND AT YOUR PERIL
In Scott & Ors v Singh [2020] EWHC 1714 (Comm) HHJ Eyre QC rejected an argument that a letter stating that the defendants agreed to some proposed amendments by the claimant meant that the court had no jurisdiction to prevent…
AMENDING PLEADINGS? HAVE A DRAFT AT COURT: JUDGE CONSIDERS “CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS” AND A “PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE PROCEDURAL LITIGATION HISTORY”
The judgment of HHJ Gore QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Sivaji v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 2006 (QB) makes interesting reading. It is an object lesson in the need to have an amended pleading to hand…
CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED TO AMEND CLAIM, OR INTRODUCE NEW EXPERT, WHERE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN BECAUSE OF COVID ALLOWED
In Ludlow -v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & BMI Healthcare Ltd [2020] EWHC 1720 (QB) Mr Justice Jay allowed an application for an adjournment on the grounds that a trial could not take place remotely. However, he refused the claimant’s…
APPLYING TO SUBSTITUTE A PARTY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE STATUTE AND THE RULES CONSIDERED
The rules relating to substituting a defendant after expiry of the limitation period are always a little intimidating. Particularly when trying to persuade a court to apply them. They were considered in detail in the judgment of Master Shuman in…
CORONAVIRUS LAW: COVID IS NOT GOING TO BE USED AS A REASON TO ALLOW A LATE AMENDMENT TO A DEFENCE
In the judgment today in Pearce v East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1504 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert considered an argument that the Coronavirus epidemic could play a part in the defendant’s application to amend its defence. …
PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DENIAL AND A NON-ADMISSION: HIGH COURT GOES BACK TO BASIC PRINCIPLES
There are some interesting observations about statements of case in the judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB). This case emphasises the difference between a non-admission and a denial…
JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
We are looking again at the decision of HHJ Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Molavi v Hibbert & Ors [2020] EWHC, this time relating to the principles to be considered in relation to joinder of additional parties….
POINTS HAVE TO BE PLEADED: APPLICATION TO AMEND AT TRIAL CORRECTLY DISALLOWED: PLEADINGS ARE THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF EACH PARTY’S CASE ARE KNOWN
In Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd v Mallon & Ors [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch) Sir Gerald Barling, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed an appeal against a judge’s refusal to consider a point that was not pleaded. The…
AMENDMENT OF CLAIM TO JOIN A NEW PARTY WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OVER LIMITATION: APPEAL AGAINST JOINDER ALLOWED
In Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm) [2019] EWHC 2501 (QB) Mr Justice Walker examines the provisions of s14A of the Limitation Act in considerable detail. This is one of those judgments that is likely to be authoritative for years…
AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS
Appeals are always difficult. The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test. It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…
RULE CHANGES (109): ELECTRONIC FILING, INCURRED COSTS AND THE CCMC, SMALL CLAIM HEARINGS IN PRIVATE
We are now on the 109th update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The three points I want to look at in particular are: mandatory electronic filing in the QBD; the costs of the CCMC being clearly categorised as incurred costs;…
