THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
Here we continue the theme of today in looking at applications to amend. In this case the application was unsuccessful because it sought to raise issues that may be subject to a limitation defence. The judge rejected the argument that…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
The theme for today may well be unsuccessful applications to amend pleadings. Here we have what may be regarded as an “extreme” case. The claimant issued proceedings relying on medical evidence that actually contradicted the pleaded case. This was pointed…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
If we have a theme for today it relates to applications to amend pleadings. This is, needless to say, a regular topic on this site. The issues and problems that litigants faced 11 years ago still occur in cases we…
PRACTICE DIRECTION CHANGES INTRODUCED YESTERDAY: NEW PROVISIONS IN THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL: “OTHER REMEDY” CLAIMS CAN NOW BE MADE
Some new provisions relating to the Damages Claim Portal came into effect yesterday, introduced in Practice Direction 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot) . Essentially these allow “other remedy claims” to be issued alongside damages claims. It also extends the portal…
SERVICE POINTS 44: LOCAL AUTHORITY FAILS TO SERVE PROPERLY ON INTERESTED PARTIES TO PROPOSED APPEAL: THE WHOLE APPEAL FAILS
Here we have another case of a failure to serve a claim form properly. This time a local authority failed to serve interested parties to an appeal because, rather than sending the claim forms to them personally, they were sent…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: TIPS FOR TESTIFYING IN COURT: FROM THE UNITED STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA)
Earlier posts have written on the issue of how little guidance there is for those attending courts (civil courts in particular) to give evidence. An earlier post provided useful links. Here we look at the guidance given in one of…
SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
There must be many anxious litigators who have read the words of CPR 6.15 and happily assumed that their case is saved. On the face of it this rule gives the court a wide power to authorise service by another…
SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)
This will not be the only case about (mis) service of the claim form this week, however it may be the largest. We have the “traditional” pattern of a claimant leaving service until the very last day and then serving…
COST BITES 391: TOO MUCH CORRESPONDENCE, GRADE C RATES NOT INCREASED AND “SO CALLED” SKELETON ARGUMENTS, WHICH REPEAT THE CONTENTS OF OVER-LENGTHY WITNESS STATEMENTS
There are some interesting observations in the short judgment on costs in this case. There was too much correspondence, “witness statements” were in reality skeleton arguments, with the contents then repeated in skeleton arguments. Furthermore a “good” Grade C is…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
In Serra -v- Harvey [2024], wasted costs were ordered on an indemnity basis against the claimant’s solicitors because the lateness and condition of the trial bundles. The bundles were described as “haphazard”. This is just one of numerous posts on…
THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – LANDING SOLICITORS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AGAIN (AND DON’T BLAME THE AI FOR EVERYTHING – IT ACTUALLY GAVE OUT WARNINGS TO CHECK…)
One day the incorrect use of AI to cite “hallucinated” authorities is going to ruin someone’s career. It may have done so already, there are a number of SRA investigations pending. The example we look at here is highly educational…
BACK TO BASICS (BANK HOLIDAY) MONDAY: A REMINDER OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE COURT APPROACHES A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
It is important to remember the major difference in the court’s approach to a an application for an extension that is made ahead of the date of compliance compared to one that is made afterwards. The governing principles are very different….
AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: WEBINAR 26th MAY 2026: NOW WITH ADDED CHECKLISTS
Allegations of undersettlement of personal injury actions are not uncommon. There is an entire industry specialising in looking at solicitor’s files. This webinar aims to help practitioners avoid such assertions and be able to provide clear and robust replies if…
THE COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED “LATE”: THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN “IN TIME” AND “OUT OF TIME” APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND TIME
I am grateful to Barrister Simon Brindle for sending me a copy of the judgment of this Court of Appeal judgment given yesterday. It relates primarily to the major distinction between an application made “ahead” of time and one made…
YOU CAN’T DELIBERATELY DECIDE TO IGNORE COURT (OR TRIBUNAL) DIRECTIONS: HMRC INVOLVED IN “CONTUMELIOUS” CONDUCT, ITS (LATE) APOLOGY GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT
Here we have a case of a litigant (the HMRC no less) making a deliberate decision to ignore Tribunal directions. It then attempted to justify that decision by stating “That was a deliberate and proportionate case management decision, taken in…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: “WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES WHEN ITS DEFENCE IS STRUCK OUT?” (MAY 2017)
Recent cases have considered the question of what a defendant can argue as to damages when a claimant has obtained summary judgment. Here we look at a case that considers the position when the defendant’s defence has been struck out. …
WOULD BE APPELLANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SEVEN DAY DEADLINE: ARGUMENTS ABOUT “PUBLIC INTEREST” FAILS TO TAKE OFF: THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING TIME LIMITS…
Here we have a case where the “would be” appellant failed to obtain permission to appeal out of time. They failed to notice that the time limits for appealing this specific type of decision had been changed two months prior…
MAZUR MATTERS 62: THE REVISED COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: SOME SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS
There is a revised version of the Court of Appeal judgment in Mazur. Some paragraphs were amended slightly (but significantly). These amendments do not appeal to have made their way to the version of the judgment that is publicly available….
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 76: APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE DAY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING, WITH NO NOTICE GIVEN: HAVE A GUESS HOW THIS WENT…
There have been quite a few cases about pleading recently. This case is interesting because it makes the point that after a default judgment is entered a claimant is only entitled to have damages assessed on the basis of their…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 75: A CLAIMANT DOES NOT ALWAYS NEED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR INTEREST: AN INTERESTING POINT… BUT BE VERY WARY…
Here we look at an argument that a claimant was not entitled to interest because it was not pleaded. The judge rejected the argument on two grounds. Firstly that CPR 16 does not apply to Part 8 claims; secondly that…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 74: A PARTY CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO AMEND THE LIST OF ISSUES TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE THAT IT HAS NEVER PLEADED
Here we have an unusual case in that the defendant, rather than seeking to amend its defence, sought permission to amend the list of issues to enable it to argue a new point which (the judge found) had not been…
WEBINARS AVAILABLE ON DEMAND: WITNESS STATEMENTS; MAZUR; INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION AND PART 36: A HEADY BREW TO LIGHTEN UP ANY LITIGATOR’S DAY…
Four webinars are now available “on demand” from Civil Litigation Brief: PD57AC; Mazur in the Court of Appeal; Informing the Client about the Costs of Litigation; Part 36 recent developments. THE COSTS (The costs are £75.00 plus VAT if you…
A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER THAT GAVE A 9% DISCOUNT WAS “SOBER AND REALISTIC”: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR THE DEFENDANT TO FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT IT
Here we have another case where the court considered an argument that it was “unjust” for an unsuccessful defendant to face the normal Part 36 consequences when they had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. This judgment shows…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 73: COURT STRIKES OUT CLAIM FOR £2.1 MILLION FOLLOWING McLAREN CATCHING FIRE: THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY PARTICULARISED
Here we have a case where the judge considers in considerable detail the principles relating to pleading, the striking out of pleadings, and the possibility of being allowed to amend. None of these favoured the claimant. “It is not sufficient…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WITNESS EVIDENCE, A LATE APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES…
Here we have an example of a litigation strategy backfiring. The applicant made a (late) application for summary judgment to be heard on the first day of the trial. The respondents filed evidence in response to the application. Much of…
AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: PROTECTING THE CLIENT AND PROTECTING YOURSELF: WEBINAR 26th MAY 2026
This webinar examines claims of under-settlement brought against claimant solicitors, focusing on how courts determine whether professional negligence has occurred in the handling, settlement, or litigation of a case. It explores key case law where negligence was both established and…
AN “OUNCE OF COMMONSENSE” COULD HAVE RESOLVED THIS – AS IT IS THE COURT WILL ALLOW LITIGATION TO CONTINUE IN TWO JURISDICTIONS.
Here we are looking at the observations made in coming to a decision (where neither applicant was successful) more than the actual process itself. The judge felt that the stance of the parties defined commonsense, but commonsense could not…
THE POSITION FOLLOWING DEATH OF A PARTY: THE FAMILY PROCEDURE RULES CANNOT “BORROW” PROVISIONS FROM THE CPR: APPEAL STRUCK OUT
This blog has looked, many times, at the problems caused by the death of a party during the course of litigation. Here we look at a problem that occurred in the Family Court. The fundamental point here is that the …
COST BITES 388: A COMPANY CANNOT CLAIM ITS OWN EMPLOYEE’S TIME AS LEGAL COSTS WHEN IT WAS REPRESENTED ON AN APPEAL
Here we have a reiteration of a long established principle as to costs. A company can only recover legal costs on an assessment, not the costs of being a litigant. Here the appellant sought to recover both. The Costs Judge…
THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO EXTEND TIME FOR ISSUE WHEN A SOLICITOR WISHES TO CHALLENGE A SRA INTERVENTION (AND WHY IT IS ADVISABLE TO PUT ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ON THE CLAIM FORM…)
We are used to looking at some extremely tight timelines on this blog, in particular in relation to issue and service. Here we have a case where the court found that the court has no power at all to extend…
COST BITES 387: THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THERE MUST BE A DETAILED ASSESSMENT WHERE A CASE LASTS MORE THAN ONE DAY: JUDGE SUMMARILY ASSESSES COSTS AFTER A THREE DAY HEARING
Here we have a case where there was an argument whether there should be a summary or detailed assessment. The judge made it clear that there is no presumption against summary assessment simply because a hearing lasted more than one…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO ASK FOR A CLAIM FORM TO BE SERVED: CPR 7.7 CONSIDERED
We have had two cases this year that deal with the provisions of CPR 7.7. A rule that allows a defendant to serve a notice requiring service of a claim form. It is worth knowing that this rule exists and…
A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE…
Here we are not looking at a judgment as such but the reasons for an order made yesterday in the High Court. The court struck out an action and ordered that the claimants’ solicitors pay £900,000 on account of costs. …
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU “OWN” IT…
We are looking at another case where the judge has expressed major concerns about the use of Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of documents for the court. The situation is now a (depressingly) familiar one where the use of AI…
COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
This case is another warning to those who are thinking about issuing committal proceedings on a “tactical” basis. The judge decided that the claimant’s conduct in the bringing of committal proceedings in this matter should lead to their paying costs…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: WEBINAR 19th MAY 2026: USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRES AND CHECKLISTS INCLUDED
Claims for loss of earnings are a critical component of many personal injury and civil litigation cases, yet they are also among the most vulnerable to failure. Poorly evidenced claims, misunderstanding of legal principles, or flawed calculations can lead not…
COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME
We are looking at an interesting decision in relation to the court being asked to determine preliminary issues in the provisional assessment process. The judge held that the courts have jurisdiction to determine preliminary applications and issues however it should…
SERVICE POINTS 41: THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION FOLLOWING INVALID SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A POINT FOR PRACTITIONERS TO WATCH…
Here we have a case where the defendants created unnecessary difficulties for themselves when taking a point as to invalid service of the claim form. The claim form was not properly served. The defendants acknowledged service indicating that they were…
SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS”: THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
We are looking at a case that bristles with procedural points, including several issues relating to valid service. Here we look at just one of those issues – whether proceedings had been validly served when sent by email or to…
COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON’T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
Here we have an unusual case where, on appeal, a costs decision in favour of a defendant was overturned on the basis that that there was no good reason not to apply the normal principle that “the loser pays”. “There…
AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
Here we have a case where the judge held that the defendant was bound by an admission made by its own insurer. The defendant was refused permission to withdraw from that admission and the claimant granted summary judgement. “I am…
SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
Here we have a case as to service when the claimant was successful. There were issues as to service as to the correct address and the correct means of service in Spain. The claimant adduced evidence from a Spanish lawyer…
COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
This judgment considers issues relating to the liability of costs, reasons why “mixed” success should lead to a reduction and the appropriate quantum for costs on a summary assessment. There are also interesting issues here in relation to hourly rates…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
Here we have a case where the judge refused the claimant permission to amend the Particulars of Claim in circumstances where it was conceded that the current pleading was “untenable”. There are important lessons here for everyone involved in preparing…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 70: THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE STRONG WORDS TO SAY ABOUT PLEADING POINTS IN A MAJOR TRIAL
In this case the Court of Appeal, in a judgment that is eviscerating in parts, makes the point that, in some areas of practice, the List of Issues, effectively replace the pleadings. Further it has strong words to say about…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE GOOD STUFF ABOUT BEING A LITIGATOR – FROM NICE LAWYERS (MAY 2020)
In May 2020 we were in the grip of the COVID crisis. Many of the posts from that period deal with issues arising from COVID, including a series (“The (Not So) Lonely Litigator’s Club – which looked at how people…
OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENTS: “THE MOST LITIGATED “FAMILY” DISPUTE IN LEGAL HISTORY (MAYBE…)
The opening lines of judgments sometimes disclose an epic saga of litigation. This is certainly the case here. A case that may well replace Jarndyce -v- Jarndyce as the classic example of lengthy (and presumably expensive) litigation – with quite a…
COST BITES 382: SHOULD THE COURT DEPART FROM THE FIXED COSTS REGIME? : “THIS HAS BECOME A COMPLEX APPLICATION…”
One of the (many) things that litigators need to keep an eye on in years to come is the circumstances in which the courts depart from fixed costs regimes. If this happens too readily then the purpose of the regime…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: SUPPORT FOR WITNESSES ATTENDING COURT: THERE ARE SOME REAL GAPS HERE…
Legal professionals attend court as a matter of routine. It is all too easy to forget how alien courts can be to most of the population. Witnesses are asked to attend court and often attend with no idea of what…
PROVING THINGS 289: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH BASIC FACT OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE
This is another case that highlights the evidential difficulties of establishing exposure in asbestos cases. The principal victim is often dead, the claimant (usually a widow) cannot give direct evidence of the facts of exposure and the case is reliant…
You must be logged in to post a comment.