FAILURE TO PAY CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN LODGING PROCEEDINGS AT COURT MEANS ACTION BITES THE DUST: CPR 3.9 AND 3.10 CANNOT HELP
In Peterson & Anor v Howard De Walden Estates Ltd [2023] EWHC 929 (KB) the unfortunate claimant failed to fail the correct fee. The court declined to issue proceedings. Consequently the claim was out of time Mr Justice Eyre held…
COST BITES 78: A CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS CONFINED TO LITIGANT IN PERSON RATES
In Wilson v Emmott [2023] EWHC 816 (KB) Mr Justice Saini (sitting with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker as a costs assessor) rejected a lawyer’s appeal against a decision that the lawyer was only entitled to recover costs on the basis…
DEFENDANT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN WITNESS EVIDENCE SERVED ONE YEAR LATE: WIDER INTERESTS OF JUSTICE CONSIDERED
I am grateful to barrister Andrew McLaughlin for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Tiernan-Spratt & Anor v City Of Wolverhampton Council [2023] EWHC 811 (KB). It concerns a successful appeal. The judge at first…
INSURER FAILED IN PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE APPLICATION: BUT… IF THE RIGHT PARTY HAD BROUGHT THE APPLICATION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
The judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Holt v Allianz Insurance Plc [2023] EWHC 790 (KB) is another round in a long running battle between car hire companies and insurers. Whilst the insurer may have lost this round it is…
A LITIGANT CAN “APPEAR” AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Owen v Black Horse Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 325 the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant’s appeal. The claim had been struck out at the start of a Small Claims Track hearing on the grounds that attendance by the…
PART 36, COSTS: THE JUDGE WAS CORRECT NOT TO FIND THAT PART 36 CONSEQUENCES SHOULD NOT APPLY: A DISPUTE “CONDUCTED IN AN ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE WAY AND AT ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE COST”
In Lampor & Ors v Jones [2023] EWHC 667 (Ch) Mr Justice Mellor dismissed the appeals by both parties in relation to costs orders made following Part 36 offers. The trial judge had held that the defendant had failed to…
COST BITES 73: APPEAL ON HOURLY RATES DID NOT GO AS THE APPELLANT PLANNED: THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES AND DETAILED ASSESSMENT
In Harlow District Council v Powerrapid Limited (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 586 (KB) Mr Justice Choudhury, sitting with Costs Judge Rowley as an assessor, rejected an appeal about the hourly rates allowed by the costs judge. There are important passages about…
THE ABSENCE OF A REPLY TO A DEFENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE ACCOUNT IN THE DEFENCE WAS ACCEPTED
There is a breach statement in the judgment of Lady Justice Andrews in Zanatta v Metroline Travel Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 224 that highlights a crucial point in relation to the drafting of a Reply. Whereas a Reply and Defence…
PROVING THINGS 250: FAILING TO PROVE IMPECUNIOSITY: A BARE ASSERTION IS NOT ADEQUATE
The judgment of Lord Justice Underhill (refusing permission to appeal) in Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 262 relates a party who failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show impecuniosity. “No evidence of Mr…
PROVING THINGS 249: APPELLANT FAILS TO PROVE LACK OF CAPACITY: SHORTFALLS WITH THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Cannon v Bar Standards Board [2023] EWCA Civ 278 the Court of Appeal held that expert evidence placed before it failed to establish that an appellant lacked capacity. The case provides importance guidance about the nature and quality of…
COST BITES 71: POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-COMPLIANT: PAYING PARTIES RAISING OBJECTIONS HAVE TO USE THEIR JUDGMENT
I am grateful to Kain Knight Costs Lawyers for drawing my attention to the judgment of HHJ Gosnell in O’Sullivan v Holmes and Hills LLP [2023] EWHC 508 (KB). The judge allowed an appeal by a solicitor in a solicitor…
CLAIMANT HAD NOT “WON” UNDER PART 36 WHEN SHE HAD NOT BEATEN THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER ON DAMAGES BUT MADE AN OFFER IN RELATION TO LIABILITY: “BAFFLING” ARGUMENTS FAIL TO PREVAIL
NB THE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT PART 36 WERE DOUBTED AND “OVERRULED” BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13. SEE THE DISCUSSION IN THE POST ON THE CASE HERE I am grateful to barrister…
A COURT CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ONCE IT HAS GIVEN UNCONDITIONAL PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE DEADWEIGHT OF THE FINALITY PRINCIPLE PREVAILS
In National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Limited & Anor [2023] EWHC 300 (Comm) Mr Justice Butcher refused an application for permission to appeal to be subject to a condition of payment into court. The court had…
THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED A BIT TOO MUCH… COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT
In Keane v Sargen & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 141 the Court of Appeal commented that interruptions of the cross examination of a witness by the trial judge had not been helpful and, indeed, inappropriate. “I add a few words…
COST BITES 57: ASKING THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE THE COSTS AFTER SETTLEMENT: YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT (COURT OF APPEAL VERSION)
There have been some interesting decisions recently on issue based costs orders and costs not always following the event. In Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 112 the Court of Appeal upheld a…
ANOTHER CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF AN EMBARGOED COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: LIABILITY FOR CONTEMPT MAY BE STRICT, BUT IN THIS CASE NEED GO NO FURTHER
In Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 57 the Court of Appeal considered another case where the results a draft embargoed judgment was disclosed (although not the judgment itself). Liability for the…
“INTERROGATION” OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
We have seen many cases relating to issues arising following the sending out of draft judgments. Another example can be viewed in the Court of Appeal judgment today in C & Ors, Re (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2023] EWCA Civ 38…
COST BITES 51: CASE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAST TRACK NOT SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
In Wilkins v Serco Ltd [2023] EWHC 61 (KB) Mrs Justice Heather Williams rejected the defendant’s appeal in relation to allocation of a case for false imprisonment. She upheld a finding that the case would have been allocated to the…
COSTS REDUCED BY 70% BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT (AFTER BEING REDUCED BY 95% DURING THE ASSESSMENT): CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
The judgment of Mr Justice Murray in AB v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 72 (KB) is part of an extraordinary saga in relation to a costs assessment. Costs had been reduced by 95% on assessment and reduced…
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY: WHIPLASH TARIFF INJURIES AND COMMON LAW DAMAGES: HOW SHOULD THE COURT DEAL WITH “MIXED” CLAIMS?
In the judgment today in Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 19 the Court of Appeal (by a majority view) decided that the Civil Liability Act 2018 did not impact on the assessment of damages for…
PROVING THINGS 246: WHEN THE WITNESS EVIDENCE MATCHES NEITHER THE PLEADINGS NOR THE CONTEMPORARY RECORDS
We are looking again at the judgment in Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 from a slightly different stance. The appeal was about QOCS and setting aside a notice of discontinuance. However the process that led…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM
In Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal, which was an attempt to subvert the principles of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”). The claimant discontinued the action…
NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST EXPERT WITNESS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL: THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT’S CONCLUSIONS CAN BE CRITICISED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THEIR DUTY
I am grateful to barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Sweeting in Robinson -v- Liverpool Hospitals NHS Trust and Mercier [2023] EWHC 21 (KB), a copy of the judgment is available here. …
COST BITES 44: THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF CONDUCT, ARE PART 36 OFFERS SIGNIFICANT?
We are returning to the judgment of Mrs Justice Stacey in TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB). The judge made some observations in relation to the costs of the assessment process. In particular the interplay of CPR 47.20…
COST BITES 43: CLAIMANT’S COSTS INCURRED BEFORE CFA SIGNED WERE RECOVERABLE
In TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB) Mrs Justice Stacey considered a number of issues relating to costs. One of those was the question of whether pre-CFA costs were recoverable. This required a close consideration of the…
AN ACTION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF AN ESTATE BY SOMEONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF ISSUE IS “A DEAD THING INTO WHICH NO LIFE COULD BE INFUSED”
One search term that regularly leads people to this site is “can I issue on behalf of an estate when I don’t have letters of administration”. There are variations on this, but the central theme is always the same. The…
PROVING THINGS 244 (& COST BITES 39): WHY COSTS LAWYERS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT PROVING THINGS
We are returning to the decision on Mr Justice Cavanagh in Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB) to consider another aspect of the rules relating to costs. The solicitors were seeking to persuade the court to…
A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY
In Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh made some observations on the practice of making submissions once a judgment is sent out in draft. This was not an invitation to the parties to…
ANOTHER QOCS AND PART 36 CASE: COURT MAKING ORDER UNDER PART 36 DID NOT LEAD TO QOCS PROTECTION BEING OUSTED
In University Hospitals of Derby & Burton NHS Foundation Trust -v- Harrison [2022] EWCA Civ 1660 * the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that QOCS protection was lost when the court was called upon to make an order…
QOCS PROTECTION APPLIED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CLAIM WAS AMENDED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 3244 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne held that an action could not become subject to QOCS part way through. If the claim was a personal injury claim at trial then…
TIME FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITOR’S BILL HAD NOT PASSED: CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED AND ASSESSMENT TO PROCEED
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL SEE Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 844 In Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2022] EWHC 3199 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne allowed an appeal on the…
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS SHOULD NORMALLY BE SUPPORTED BY A DRAFT AND WITNESS EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: A RIGHT ROYAL ISSUE
In Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbon y Borbon (Rev1) [2022] EWCA Civ 1595 the Court of Appeal set out the importance of having a draft pleading to hand when seeking permission to amend a statement…
CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
I am grateful to Daniel Slade from Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Soole in AAA -v- BBB [2022] EWHC 3103 (KB). It is a case where the claimant was successful in appealing…
PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Taylor & Anor v Raspin [2022] EWCA Civ 1613 emphasises the difficulty in appealing findings of fact. The Court also took a little time to point out the limited role of experts in…
EXPERTS: A PARTY CANNOT INSIST THAT A SINGLE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BE MALE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In N (A Child), Re (Instruction of Expert) [2022] EWCA Civ 1588 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a single joint expert should have been male. The judgment emphasises the point that a party wishing to argue for…
PROBLEMS WITH EXPERTS- THE ISSUES ARE UNIVERSAL: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE IRISH COURTS: WEBINAR ON EXPERTS 14th DECEMBER 2022
When in September I planned the webinar Expert Evidence in the Courts in 2022 there had been a dozen or so cases relating to experts in litigation. Since then there have been half a dozen more. There is an example…
THE COURT CANNOT COMPEL A PARTY TO CALL A WITNESS: “PARTY AUTONOMY IS PARAMOUNT”
In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1541 (22 November 2022) the Court of Appeal held that the courts have no power to compel a party to call a witness. “The starting proposition must…
EVIDENCE OF STATISTICS FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITORS RELATING TO CLAIMS NOT EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor [2022] EWHC 2951 (KB) is of considerable interest to anyone involved in litigation, particular personal injury litigation. The judge upheld a finding that a witness statement from the…
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED IN TIME WHEN IT WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED AFTER 4.30 pm: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd & Ors v JJH Enterprises Ltd (Re Electronic Filing of Appellant’s Notice) [2022] EWCA Civ 1509 the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that an appellant’s notice filed electronically after 4.30pm on the last date…
THE “OLD” CONDITIONAL FEE SCHEME WAS IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 6:UNINSURED DEFENDANTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY
Amidst the bustle of recent cases about costs the European Court of Human Rights decision in Coventry v. the United Kingdom – 6016/16 may well be overlooked. The Court found that the “old” system of conditional fee litigation, whereby a defendant was…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 5: WANT TO SEE THE FINAL COURT OF APPEAL ORDER?
The previous post on Belsner indicated that a final order had been made by the Court of Appeal. That order can be seen here BelsnerSEALED ORDER (1) and the text is reproduced below. The interesting aspect of the order is,…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 4: FAIR COSTS AND LEGAL FICTION : PLUS A USEFUL WEBINAR
The latest development in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 is that the unsuccessful claimant has been ordered to pay £130,000 on account of costs and repay £25,000 that was previously paid to her. However, here I…
PROVING THINGS 242: A SOLICITOR’S SHORTHAND NOTE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ANY WEIGHT AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB), was looked at yesterday on this blog. The judgment also contains an interesting approach to civil evidence at trial. The claimant’s solicitor prepared a witness statement annexing her…
APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION TO REFUSE TO ADMIT WITNESS STATEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES
I am grateful to barrister Jake Rowley for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). Mr Justice Garnham refused an appeal when a judge had held that a witness…
COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE “SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE”: THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS USUALLY THE START AND FINISH OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF
The judgment of Mrs Justice Heather Williams in Lydford v Skinner [2021] EWHC 3783 (QB) could well appear in the “Proving Things” series. A claimant’s action for damages for personal injury failed because he failed to establish that an occupier was…
I’M PICKING UP BAD CITATIONS: USE LAW REPORTS – DON’T SURF THE NET
There is a short postscript to the judgment of Paul Bowen KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in YR, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 2813 (Admin), which is of general importance….
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 3: THE COMMENTARY: A DOZEN POSTS TO THINK ABOUT
There is no shortage of commentary on the Belsner case. I have rounded up a dozen posts here. Unusually those representing both sides (and the intervenor) have given some commentary. I have set out the links below. TWO…
COST BITES 28: APPEALING AGAINST AN ORDER FOR COSTS: THE MAJOR HURDLE INVOLVED AND THE RELEVANCE OF A NON-PART 36 OFFER TO SETTLE
In TMO Renewables Ltd v Yeo & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1409 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order for costs. The case is a reminder of the difficulty in appealing a decision as to costs. Further…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 2: WELL THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY (2): “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTENTIOUS AND NON-CONTENTIOUS COSTS IS OUTDATED AND ILLOGICAL”
Continuing with the analysis of the judgment in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 we now look at the decision in relation to whether these were contentious or non-contentious costs. “the distinction between contentious and non-contentious…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 1: WELL – THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY
The first point that has to be made about the decision in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 relates to economics. The argument that took four days in the Court of Appeal was over a small…
You must be logged in to post a comment.