CLAIMANT LAWYERS: YOU MUST KNOW THE RULES RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: YOU CAN’T EXPECT THE DEFENDANT TO HELP YOU OUT
One guarantee for anyone writing about civil procedure is that there will be a regular supply of what Master McCloud has described as ” a dry and unlovely crop of procedural service issues”, The Court of Appeal decision in Woodward…
APPEAL AGAINST DISPROPORTIONAL COSTS FAILS: REASONABLE TO USE LEADING COUNSEL IN A £25,000 CLAIM
In East Sussex Fire And Rescue Service v Austin [2019] EWHC 1455 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed the defendant’s (paying party) appeal. The defendant argued that costs were disproportional, that the use of leading counsel was unreasonable – as was…
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)
In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…
PROPORTIONALITY: A WARNING AGAINST A “CLIENT-CENTRIC” APPROACH: £74,000 REDUCED TO £15,000: HIGH COURT CASE ON APPEAL
In Malmsten v Bohinc [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith allowed a paying party’s appeal in an assessment and reduced a bill from £74,328.90 to £15,000. There is a detailed consideration of how the proportionality test should be…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”
There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…
MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS LIABLE TO COVER VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN OFF ROAD: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of Mr Justice Soole that the Motor Insurers Bureau were liable to indemnify the driver of a vehicle that was being driven “off…
MASTER ENTITLED TO STRIKE OUT UNPARTICULARISED GROUNDS OF DISPUTE IN SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT: BE PARTICULAR OR ELSE…
In Ainsworth -v- Stewarts Law LLP [201] EWCA Civ 897 HHJ Klein (sitting as a High Court judge) dismissed an appeal against an order dismissing a former client’s challenge to work done on documents. The Master held that the claimant’s…
THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE
In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…
ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)
I am looking again at the decision in O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23. That case predates the more recent Court of Appeal judgment in Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898. However it is another example of a party attempting to use the…
“VERY UNFORTUNATELY, ON TWO OCCASIONS… THE … JUDGE FELL ASLEEP”: APPEAL ALLOWED
In Science Museum Group v Wess [2019] UKEAT 0260 HHJ Auberach made a finding that the Employment Judge had fallen asleep. The appeal was allowed on this ground alone. “I find as a fact that, very unfortunately, on the afternoon…
DRAFT JUDGMENTS “ARE NOT AN INVITATION TO TREAT”: COURT OF APPEAL SEEKS TO PUT AN END TO REQUEST THAT ARE “CONFRONTATIONAL AND DISRESPECTFUL”
In I Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898 the Court of Appeal gave clear guidance to practitioners who write to the court seeking “clarification” of a written judgment. There are clear parameters and the parties should not use the draft judgment…
“THIS WAS A DECISION TAKEN ON FACTS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE”: MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE BY THE PAROLE BOARD: WHERE TWO CASES GET CONFUSED – HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT NIGHT?
It is unusual for this blog to look at decisions relating to Parole Board. However the careful gathering and analysis of evidence is central to every litigator’s role. A remarkable set of facts is outlined in the judgment of HHJ…
COURT OF APPEAL: NOT TOO KEEN ON PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR “ACADEMIC” ARGUMENTS
In J-S (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 894, the Court of Appeal declined to hear an argument that was “academic”. It also gave guidance to judges when considering applications for permission to appeal on the “other compelling reason for an appeal”…
PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE RELEVANT TEST: NO REQUIREMENT THAT SUCCESS BE PROBABLE OR MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
In R (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 895 the Court of Appeal set out the criteria for permission for appeal. “The test for the grant of permission to appeal on an application to the Court of Appeal or to the…
ATTEMPTS TO HARASS THE TRIAL JUDGE IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION
In Hilson v McCarthy [2019] EWHC 1110 (Admin) the Divisional Court confirmed that the appellants had harassed a judge unlawfully and amounted to harassment. It is an important case for anyone involved in the legal system. “in examining the nature…
RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS – ISN’T THAT EASY : WITH A HOMAGE TO THE WIT AND WISDOM OF RALPH GUIDE DOG (RETIRED)
I got nudged into writing this post on withdrawing from admissions by Ralph Guide Dog, (Retired). So, especially for Ralph – who has always taken a keen interest in all things legal, the latest High Court decision on resiling from…
ANOTHER TRIAL BUNDLE CASE: ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE TRIAL BUNDLE: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT DISMISSED
In Al-Balhaa v Raphael & Ors [2019] EWHC 1323 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol upheld a finding that the action was struck out because of the claimant’s failure to prepare a trial bundle and relief from sanctions should not be granted. …
APPELLANT’S COSTS OF APPEAL WERE “MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE” : COURT OF APPEAL REDUCES £71,072 SCHEDULE TO £13,000
A short postcript to the Court of Appeal judgment in Jofa Ltd & Anor v Benherst Finance Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 899 makes some telling remarks about the cost of appeals. “the amount of costs claimed by the…
PART 36 OFFER ON COSTS THAT STATES IT IS “EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST” IS STILL A VALID OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED
I am grateful to barrister Jamie Carpenter for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Nicol in Horne -v- Prescot (No 1) Ltd 2019 1322 (QB). The case relates to whether a Part 36 offer on costs,…
THE PURPOSE OF PUPILLAGE – JUDICIALLY DEFINED
In Ekperigin v Bar Standards Board [2019] EWHC 1292 (Admin) Holman J considered the purpose of pupillage. “It is the stage in which, by a form of “osmosis”, a barrister at the outset of his*career learns and absorbs what it…