LOST YEARS DAMAGES AND THE CHILD CLAIMANT: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY
The judgment of the Supreme Court today considered whether “lost years” damages should be awarded to a young child. The Court, by a majority, allowed the claimant’s appeal and held that damages should be awarded in these circumstances. This post…
PART 36: RECENT CASES, KEY ISSUES AND KEY PROBLEMS CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2026
A detailed working knowledge of Part 36 in practice is no longer optional for litigators. Recent decisions show the courts applying the rules with increasing rigour, exposing parties to serious and often unexpected costs consequences. This webinar cuts through…
COST BITES 349 : THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 100% OF THEIR COSTS: THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL WAS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR
It is rare for the Court of Appeal to overturn a first instance decision as to costs. We see an example of this happening here. The Upper Tribunal awarded the claimant 75% of his costs of a judicial review application…
PART 36: LIABILITY ONLY OFFERS AND THE COURT OF APPEAL: WE DON’T HAVE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY WE DO HAVE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY
Those with long memories will recall the confusion and uncertainty that the Court of Appeal caused in Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412 when the concept of a “near miss” was introduced in relation to Part 36. A…
COST BITES 345: RECEIVING PARTY’S FAILURE TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT A NULLITY: CLEVER AND COMPLEX ARGUMENTS DID NOT PREVAIL
What are the consequences if a party lodging the documents for a provisional assessment of costs fails to file all the relevant documents and the assessment goes ahead without the judge seeing all the points of dispute? . This is…
THE PROFOUND DIFFICULTIES IN AMENDING PROCEEDINGS TO SUBSTITUTE A PARTY AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: WHY CLAIMANTS HAVE TO BE CERTAIN OF WHO THEY ARE SUING…
This decision today emphasises the difficulties for a claimant who has waited until near the end of the limitation period, issued and then finds that they have not sued the correct defendant. It is now less likely that a court…
COURT SETS ASIDE A DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT HAD BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: THE ORDER WAS NOT DRAFTED “IN THE CLEAREST AND MOST PRECISE LANGUAGE” NECESSARY
There have been several cases this week about the drafting of, and compliance with, unless orders. We see this issue again here. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant litigant in person had complied with an order of the…
THE CLAIMANTS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: COURT REFUSES AN EXTENSION: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE: OUT OF TIME MEANS OUT OF COURT…
One thing anyone considering an appeal should know, with absolute certainty, is the date the appeal has to be lodged. This, in turn, involves knowing the date on which the period starts running. Here we see a case where the…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED : WHEN NON-COMPLIANCE ALMOST APPEARS TO BE A LITIGATION STRATEGY: HAVING A BONA FIDE CLAIM DOES NOT GIVE YOU A FREE PASS
Here we have a case where the Court of Appeal considered the Denton principles in some detail. The judgment provides a useful reminder of some basic principles. Firstly that a litigant seeking relief from sanctions cannot complain about the original…
HIGH COURT TACKLES SOME DIFFICULT PROCEDURAL ISSUES (1): IS A PREVIOUS BREACH NECESSARY FOR A PEREMPTORY ORDER TO BE MADE
We are looking at judgment that is, essentially, all about procedural compliance and the court’s approach to making “unless orders”. The approach of the appellate court to case management decisions could be added to that list. It is a detailed…
COST BITES 341: THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT LAST 50 DAYS: COURT OF APPEAL ADVOCATES “SAMPLING” APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF £44 MILLION BILL OF COSTS
It is rare for a court, particularly the Court of Appeal, to take one step aside from the issue being determined and make some general observations on the process of the assessment of costs. This is one of those rare…
MAZUR MATTERS 48: THE INTERIM REPORT: REGULATOR’S GUIDANCE ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION WAS “NOT ALWAYS ARTICULATED WITH SUFFICIENT PRECISION”
The snappily titled “Interim Report: Regulatory review of advice and guidance provided to the profession on the conduct of litigation by approved regulators and regulatory bodies” from the Legal Services Board is five pages long (including one page spent on…
PROVING THINGS 276: APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS TRIAL JUDGE’S “INFERENCES” OF LOSS: DAMAGES AWARD OF £347,285 REPLACED WITH £NIL
This is a classic “Proving Things” case, the only surprise being that it reached the appeal stage. On appeal the the judge overturned the trial judge’s findings in favour of the defendant’s counterclaim and reduced a damages award of £347,285…
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SPECIFIC ISSUES: WHEN SHOULD A “COMPELLING REASON” PREVENT JUDGMENT BEING GIVEN? (NOT HERE…)
One ground for resisting an application for summary judgment is that there is a “compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial”. It is unusual for the issue of a “compelling reason” to be considered,…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A ROBUST OVERTURNING OF THE APPROACH TO THE WITNESS EVIDENCE AT FIRST INSTANCE: “GENERALISED FINDINGS ON CREDIBILITY ARE NOT A USEFUL TOOL FOR RESOLVING SPECIFIC ISSUES OF FACT”
It is unusual to see an appellate court make robust criticisms of the fact finding process at first instance. We have such a judgment here by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT made it clear that generalised findings as to…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER 3: SO WHY DID THE CLAIMANT LOSE? PLUS – THE STING IN THE TAIL FOR DEFENDANTS…
Earlier posts have shown that the claimant was successful on two of the key issues in relation to the appeal. However litigation can be cruel. A litigant can win on many issues but still lose the case. So it is…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER 2: WAS AN OFFER ON LIABILITY EFFECTIVE IN THIS CONTEXT?
We continue with the detailed examination of the Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 this morning. This aspect of the case is particularly important because, again, although the claimant lost the appeal he won on this particular issue. That…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER (1): WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “JUDGMENT” AND AN “ORDER” ?
There are some interesting issues raised in the Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 today that every practitioner should be aware of. The case has been helpfully summarised by my colleague Elliot Kay here. I wanted to break down…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PART 36 THIS MORNING: AN OFFER OF 90% ON LIABILITY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE PART 36 CONSEQUENCES WHEN A CLAIM IS APPROVED ON DAMAGES (BUT DID NOT IN THIS CASE).
I am grateful to my colleague Elliot Kay for sending me a note of a Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 given this morning. The issue relates to Part 36 offers on liability where the matter is compromised and…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 47: YOU CAN’T CRITICISE A JUDGE FOR NOT FINDING ON A CASE THAT WAS NOT PLEADED (AND ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THE CLAIMANT EXPRESSLY DISAVOWED THE CLAIM NOW BEING MADE ON APPEAL)
Here we are looking at an unusual appeal. The appellant argued firstly that the judge should have found for them on a point that was not pleaded. A second argument was that the judge should have assessed loss on a…
WAS THIS “SECOND” ACTION AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN MATTERS HAD HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN AN EARLIER HEARING? IF SO WHAT SHOULD THE COURT DO?
When a party is dissatisfied with the result of a hearing and has exhausted the appeal process there is often little they can do. One potential remedy is to bring a second action seeking to set aside the first on…
WHEN CAN A JUDGE ADD ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO A JUDGMENT AFTER HANDING DOWN? COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERED THE ISSUE
Here we are looking at an old case. However it has only recently arrived on BAILII and deals with an issue that remains relevant today. The Court of Appeal considered the issue of when is it appropriate for a judge…
THE RELEVANCE OF THE ABSENCE OF ORAL EVIDENCE AT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS: A JUDGE MUST MAKE A DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM
In this case the claimant appealed against the findings of fact that the court made at first instance. However those findings were made on the basis of written evidence that was before the court. The claimant had not applied for…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: FINDINGS OF DISHONESTY WERE WRONG AND COULD NOT STAND: ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF “INTUITION”
Here we look at a case where, unusually, the judge overturned first instance findings of dishonesty. The circumstances in which those findings were made were seriously flawed. Important procedural safeguards had not been in place, not least the allegations…
PROVING THINGS 275: IF YOU CAN’T PROVE YOU SUFFERED A LOSS THEN YOU HAVE NO CLAIM: ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS DISMISSED: THE PARABLE OF THE MOUNTAINEER’S KNEE
Here we have an interesting case about the alleged professional negligence of solicitors. The case did not get very far, being struck out at first instance and with that decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. Put simply the claimants…
COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES PERMISSION FOR APPELLANT TO AMEND PLEADINGS OR RELY ON NEW EVIDENCE: GET YOUR CASE TOGETHER BEFORE AN APPLICATION NOT AFTER IT…
In this judgment today the Court of Appeal refused an application by an appellant to rely on amended Particulars of Claim or adduce new evidence in a case where the claim was struck out. The Court made the point that…
NEW SERIES FOR 2026: CIVIL PROCEDURE “BACK TO BASICS MONDAY”: STARTING ON …. MONDAY…
We look at many cases on this blog where litigants (often more accurately – litigators) experience major procedural difficulties. It is surprising how often these difficulties arise from a very basic failure. That is a failure to follow a rule,…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: SPECIAL TWIXMAS EDITION: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: CLAIMANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AS EVIDENCE
The last Witness Evidence Wednesday of the year deals with an unusual case relating to relief from sanctions following a failure to serve witness evidence timeously. The judge at first instance had refused the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. …
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 13: WHAT ARE PEOPLE READING?
It is always interesting to look back and see what are the most popular posts each year. Sometimes this contains surprises, sometimes it says something about the state (or at least the interests) of the legal profession. Here are…
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 12: MAZUR AND THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: 48 POSTS TO DATE…
I have saved this topic from being the 13th in the series. However it may be fitting if it was. From the moment I read the the Mazur judgment for the first time it was clear that it was going…
MAZUR MATTERS 45: COURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON 24th FEBRUARY 2026
The Court of Appeal is to hear the appear in the Mazur decision on the 24th February. Here we re-visit the arguments that the Law Society and the SRA put forward at first instance. It will be interesting to see…
WAS THIS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS/ABUSE OF PROCESS OR WERE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS “OBITER DICTA”? AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONSIDERED
Most (hopefully all) law students learn about the difference between the ratio decidendi of a case and “obiter dictum”. These important distinctions can have real world consequences. We look at a judgment here where that was the major issue between the…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 42: THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A “DENIAL”: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE CASE WAS PLEADED
This is the first of two interesting cases today that have been sent in by readers. I am grateful to Rebecca McVety of the Dental Law Partnership for sending me this judgment which deals with pleadings, in particular the very…
CONSTRUING A COURT ORDER: WHAT DOES THE WORD “IMPECUNIOSITY” MEAN? “IT DEPENDS” – THE ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT
In this case the court made a court order which meant that the claimant was debarred from relying on issues relating to “impecuniosity” at trial. The appeal was, in part, about what “impecuniosity” meant in that context. (It was reasonable…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 41: HAD THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY PARTICULARISED ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY?
A party alleging fraud or dishonesty cannot “ambush” their opponent at trial. Fraud must be fully particularised and pleaded. Do identical principles apply to allegations of fundamental dishonesty? In this case the judge considered an argument that points in relation…
WHEN CAN ADVERSE FINDINGS ABOUT A WITNESS IN A CASE BE APPEALED? THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
It is not unusual for trial judges to be critical of the conduct or evidence of a witness in a case. What should a witness do if the judgment is critical of them? Do they have a right of anonymity? …
INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED IN CASE WHERE CLAIMANTS OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR IN A “STING” OPERATION: “THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE”
This is a case worth reading if you want to see strong judicial commentary on litigation conduct. The judge was clear in his view of the conduct that the claimants had engaged in and surprised by its lack of self…
CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO APPEAL: “WHILST A DECISION MAY BE FINAL, THAT FINAL DECISION MUST BE FAIR”
A post earlier this week highlighted the fact that that it is not possible to appeal a decision of a Circuit Judge refusing permission to appeal. The only option for a litigant in these circumstances is to apply for judicial…
EXPERT WATCH 26: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ADMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: “IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT VALUE IT WOULD ADD TO THE CASE”
It is rare to see an appeal where a decision about whether to admit expert evidence is considered. In this case the Court of Appeal considered the judge’s decision not to admit a report. Both parties agreed that the report…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A JUDGE ASKING A WITNESS TO CLARIFY THEIR EVIDENCE IS NOT “BIASED” : “JUDGES ARE NOT PASSIVE SPECTATORS AT A TRIAL”
This week we are looking at an appeal that considers the trial judge’s consideration of witnesses at trial. The appellant alleged that the judge was biased and the trial therefore unfair. There is a detailed consideration of the “bias” alleged…
MAZUR MATTERS 41: CILEX GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL THE MAZUR JUDGMENT: BUT WHEN WILL IT BE HEARD?
CILEX have been granted permission to appeal the Mazur judgment. The primary question for the profession now is (i) when will the appeal be heard; (ii) what do we do in the meantime? Mazur remaining good law. (I wish CILEX…
“SECOND APPEALS” FROM THE CIRCUIT JUDGE: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR APPEAL AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA APPLIED?
This case reveals a potential trap that would be appellants can fall into when attempting to appeal a decision of a Circuit Judge when that judge heard an appeal from a District Judge. Both the venue for the appeal and…
MAZUR MATTERS 39: CILEX APPLIES TO APPEAL MAZUR DECISION
An announcement on the CILEX website today states that it is applying for permission to appeal the decision in Mazur. The argument will be that, the Law Society, The SRA and the High Court construed the Solicitors Act incorrectly. Watch…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: THE LAW, PRACTICE AND SPECIAL CASES: WEBINAR 17th NOVEMBER 2025
You may be reading this for the second time – but it may be partly your own fault.… This webinar looks at the law relating to contributory negligence, the legislation and the key cases. Booking details are available here. …
PERMISSION TO APPEAL “SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON” AND A FRIENDLY STATE
CPR 52.6(1)(b) states that a court can give permission to appeal where ” there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard”. That rule is rarely considered. However we a direct consideration of that that rule in…
CONTEMPT OF COURT (3): DOES THE ABSENCE OF A PENAL NOTICE PREVENT COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS? ARE THERE TWO TIERS OF COURT ORDER? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS STRONG VIEWS…
Does the absence of a penal notice on a court order mean that a party in default cannot be subject to committal proceedings? This was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in this case. The possibility that litigants…
CONTEMPT OF COURT (1) CONTEMPT NEED NOT BE “CONTUMELIOUS” (WHATEVER THAT MEANS): WHY CHIEF CONSTABLES, CHIEF EXECUTIVES, MINISTERS OF STATE AND BOSSES EVERYWHERE NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO LITIGATION
I am breaking down this important Court of Appeal decision into a number of parts. We have already looked at the judgment as to the numerous “misleading” witness statements that were filed. The Court of Appeal also makes important observations…
APPEAL STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF APPELLANTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A COMPLIANT BUNDLE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED
All those involved in the appeal process, indeed litigation generally, are best advised to read this judgment. It is about the standard the court’s expect when an appeal is being brought. It is also about procedural failures and failures to…
ANOTHER “BUNDLES” ISSUE: THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRACTICE DIRECTION ON THE CITATION OF AUTHORITIES; “I’M PICKING UP BAD CITATIONS” – THE REMIX…
It is often worthwhile looking at short judgments or comments at the end of a case, particularly in the Court of Appeal. They sometimes contain little gems of very useful information. We see that here in the short judgment of…
SERVICE POINTS 18: DECISION TODAY: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE CLAIM FORM UNTIL AFTER IT EXPIRED, YET THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS UNYIELDING
We are continuing our examination of the Court of Appeal judgment today in relation to service of the claim form. The claimant’s solicitors received the claim form after the date it had expired. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal upheld the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.