SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF A DECISION NOT TO PROVIDE COURT FEE REMISSION: GUIDANCE ON HOW TO APPEAL REFUSAL TO GRANT REMISSION
I am grateful to solicitor Anthony McCarthy for sending me brief details of a successful appeal against a decision refusing remission of court fees. Anthony states that successful appeals are very rare. ANTHONY’S NOTE ON THE APPEAL Fee was £10k…
NOT GIVING SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF WHEN A SOLICITOR FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT: A PROBLEM BREAKING OUT ALL OVER
A post yesterday commented on the dangers of a solicitor (or indeed anyone) making a witness statement without giving the sources of their information and belief. An identical issue arose in the judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Islestarr Holdings…
RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE AND HEARINGS IN “CHAMBERS”: BAR COUNCIL GUIDANCE
I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for referring me to the Bar Council publication “Acting as a Solicitor’s Agent”. This has a different view to those set out in earlier posts. It would be prudent for those involved in…
WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT “BE PREPARED”: MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT
I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Leonard in PME -v- The Scout Association (30/07/2019). 1. JUDGMENT PME (003). This deals with two issues (i) the jurisdiction of…
AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME : THEY CAN BE A GOOD THING – BUT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY
In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 the Court of Appeal were far more supportive of the idea that parties in Inheritance Act claims could agree a “limitation amnesty”. However an agreement has to be drafted with…
FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER
I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of consent order made in the Court of Appeal. The Court allowed an appeal, by consent, that the defendant to certain applications was only allowed fixed costs in an…
DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY
In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable. (The judgment also reviews the authorities…
BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES – A MUST AT TRIAL – A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES…)
There was much excitement about the rules changes so that bundles for applications and trials should be double-sided. However nothing is consistent in legal procedure. I am grateful to barrister Matt Jackson for sending me a (highly redacted) copy…
RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES
In Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337 the Court of Appeal reviewed the principles relating to new matters being raised on appeal. “These authorities show that there is no general rule that a case…
ANOTHER POST ON THE AUTHORITIES BUNDLE: THE SUPREME COURT SAY THEY SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: GUIDANCE FROM THE NICE LAWYERS OF TWITTER
Earlier today I reported on a comment from the Court of Appeal that it did not help for authorities to be placed in alphabetical order. I commented on the absence of clear guidance. Here we look at the views from…
A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY
The Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing today in Swift -v- Carpenter. Looking at the footage at 1.04 you can see a comment by the court in relation to the bundle of authorities. THE BUNDLE WAS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER…
NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING – NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 the Court of Appeal overturned an order that a mother pay counsel’s fees of certain hearings. The judgment is interesting in that costs were disallowed (inter partes) as unreasonable even when the…
PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
In West -v- Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 the Court of Appeal considered the question of proportionality in relation to clinical negligence actions and the “recoverable” element of ATE insurance. I am grateful to Sean Linley for…
PREPARE A NON-COMPLIANT BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES: THE RISKS OF COSTS BEING DISALLOWED: COURT OF APPEAL SOUNDS A WARNING
In the judgment today in Parr v Keystone Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1246 Lord Justice Lewison expressed concerns about the failure to follow the Practice Direction on the citation of authorities. THE CASE The Court of…
APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT’S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE
In Gray v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) Mr Justice Lambert dismissed the claimant’s appeal from cost budgeting decisions. The judgment contains important observations about the nature of cost budgeting hearings and appeals on…
THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT
There is a judgment today on BAILLI in a family case. The case appears to be subject to reporting restrictions so I do not propose to link to it, or even name it, until these are clarified. However what is…
PROPORTIONALITY: SHOULD HINDSIGHT BE A FACTOR? EXTRACTS FROM O’HARE AND BROWNE ON CIVIL LITIGATION (YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST…)
I am grateful to John O’Hare for sending me an extract from the next edition of O’Hare and Browne on Civil Litigation (19th edition). It deals with proportionality and, in particular, whether hindsight should be a factor in assessing proportionality. …
A SECOND – IDENTICAL – APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE
In Lambert v Forest of Dean District Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 1763 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen rejected an application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. An identical application had been made earlier and struck out…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53A: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES: ALI -v-CHANNEL 5
Shortly after I completed the post on Part 36 offers after the costs budget has been confined to court fees Professor Dominic Regan reminded me that there is another example in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES
This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…
“A BIT OF A SHORT BALL”: STATING THE JUDGE’S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS
There is an interesting discussion as to Judicial bias in the judgment of Mrs Justice Theis in X v Y (Permission to Appeal) [2019] EWHC 1713 (Fam). “The interjections by the judge during the hearing should be viewed not as…
THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH
In Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) Mr Justice Henry Carr refused an appeal against the making of a “Bullock” order in relation to the costs of a fourth defendant. The claimant, however, was not successful…
INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: REASONS FOR REFUSING PERMISSION NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE
I wrote on the judgment in I – interim payment of costs. in an earlier post . I subsequently wrote that the defendant had been refused permission to appeal. The reasons are available on the Switalskis website, here. ” it seems entirely…
INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
I wrote on the judgment in I – interim payment of costs. in an earlier post. An article on the Switalskis website today states that the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal.( I know that the…
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE SET ASIDE: THE DANGERS OF SEEKING TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF A CLAIM FORM ON A WITHOUT NOTICE BASIS – EXEMPLIFIED
In Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by defendants who objected to an extension of time being granted for service of the claim form. It is an object…
CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL IN RECOVERING ADDITIONAL 10% IN DAMAGES WHEN OWN OFFER WAS BEATEN: THE ADDITIONAL AWARD SHOULD NOT BE CATEGORISED AS A “BONUS”
In JLE v Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Trust Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1582 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart overturned an order of the Master who declined to award the claimant an additional 10% in costs when they had beat their…
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
NB THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE THE MOTOR INSURERS (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 2022 In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of Mr Justice Soole that…
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 [2019] 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…
WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES
In Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 allowed an appeal by an insurer so that an application for committal for contempt of court can proceed. No substantive findings of fact have been made. The judgment shows that…
DECISION OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR JUDICIAL TREATMENT: “TAKING UP THE CUDGELS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION”
There are few cases that are overturned on the grounds of unfair judicial treatment. However this was one of grounds the appeal was allowed today in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 “On numerous occasions, the Judge…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE
In Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 817 Lord Justice Lewison set out a “cut out and keep” guide for parties attempting to appeal findings of fact. A reminder of the uphill battle that appellants…
JUDGE REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF: DEFENDANT APPEALS: APPEAL DISMISSED: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE POST OFFICE SAGA: ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM” SHOULD BE EXPLAINED
I did not blog, immediately, after the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 4) [2019] EWHC 871 (QB because I suspected (indeed it was inevitable, given its approach to this litigation) that the Post Office would…
You must be logged in to post a comment.