A PARTY CANNOT SIMPLY ADD A PENAL NOTICE TO A COURT ORDER: IF THE COURT DOESN’T ORDER IT THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE ORDER
In Taray Brokering Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 2958 (Ch) HH Pearce held it was not open to a party to place a penal notice on a court order when the court itself had not placed such a notice on the…
HAVE THE DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITORS STATED THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT SERVICE? ANOTHER TRICKY CLAIM FORM ISSUE
In Motorola Solutions, Inc & Anor v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm) Mr Justice Picken considered an issue relating to valid service. A firm of solicitors, that stated it would accept service of proceedings, argued…
COST (MEGA) BITES 35: THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT THAT LASTED 104 DAYS : COSTS JUDGE REFUSES TO VARY EARLIER DECISION
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc. & Anor [2022] EWHC 2920 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker gave a judgment which finalised a detailed assessment that had lasted 104 days. The judge found that, prior to the assessment concluding, …
WHEN SHOULD COSTS BE SUMMARILY ASSESSED OR SUBJECT TO DETAILED ASSESSMENT? HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
In Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors (Costs) [2022] EWHC 2907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered an argument that the costs of an application should be subject to detailed assessment rather than summarily…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 94: CLAIMANTS – DO NOT SHOW APPROVAL ADVICES TO THE DEFENDANT
An issue I have seen periodically, but twice this week, is a belief by some claimant solicitors that an advice obtained for the purpose of approval of a civil action for a protected party has to be shown to the…
DEFENDANT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A SINGLE EVIDENTIAL ISSUE: CPR 24.2 CAN BE USED IN THIS CONTEXT
In Holdgate v Bishop [2022] EWHC 2850 (KB) Master Thornett granted the defendant’s application for summary judgement on a specific issue. The Master granted the defendant judgment on the issue of whether the claimant had instructed solicitors to sell land…
DEFENDANT SOLICITOR IN COSTS ASSESSMENT NEED NOT RESPOND TO PART 18 REQUESTS ABOUT PREMIUMS: “THE GENERAL QUESTIONS POSED ARE A PARADIGM EXAMPLE OF A FISHING EXPEDITION”
I am grateful to Nick McDonell from Kain Knight for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge Rowley in Brown -v- JMW Solicitors LLP [2022] 2848 (SCCO). In that case the judge refused to make an order…
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…
COST BITES 34: INTERLOCUTORY COSTS ORDERS CAN BE MADE AGAINST PARTIES WITH THE PROTECTION OF QOCS (IT IS ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE)
In Atmani & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2618 (KB) Senior Master Fontaine considered the costs consequences of the decisions made in her judgment, considered in an earlier post. The Master held that…
JUDGMENT ON ADMISSIONS ONLY AVAILABLE WHERE LIABILITY TO PAY DAMAGES IS ADMITTED: INTERIM COSTS ORDERS REQUIRE SCHEDULES TO BE AT COURT: LESSONS FROM THE GRENFELL LITIGATION
In Abdel-Kader & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2006 (QB)Senior Master Fontaine considered the basis for applying for judgment and interim costs. The claimants had not identified the basis upon which judgment was…
TWO ISSUES: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: ATTEMPTING TO RE-OPEN A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF OMISSIONS IN THE JUDGMENT: ADVOCATES NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION CAREFULLY
There are two aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Cazalet v Abu-zalaf [2022] EWFC 119 that are of general interest to litigators. Firstly the judge’s observations as to witness credibility. Secondly the observations in relation to re-opening…
ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL
We see a familiar story in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC). The witness statements of the claimant…
WHAT GOES ON IN LEEDS STAYS IN LEEDS: ANOTHER MISSIVE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In Bhimsinhji & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Determination as to Venue) [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham reiterated a point that has been made several times before in relation to venue for hearing in…
COST BITES 23: CLAIMANT FAILS IN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY OF A SOLICITOR’S BILL OF COSTS: CHAMBERLAIN BILLS HAD BEEN SENT; A SIGNATURE ON AN EMAIL WAS SUFFICIENT; ELECTRONIC DELIVERY COMPLIED WITH THE SOLICITORS ACT
In Elias v Wallace LLP [2022] EWHC 2574 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker dismissed the claimant’s application for a delivery of a bill of costs. He found that (i) the bills delivered were “Chamberlain” bills and had sufficient information for…
PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIAL PROBLEMS WHEN REPRESENTING FOREIGN DEFENDANTS: WITNESSES COULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE BY VIDEO LINK: AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION OF A REPORT HAD BEEN PROVIDED
The judgment of HHJ Howells in Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2436 (QB) shows the difficulties that can occur when representing foreign defendants. The defendant was not permitted to allow witnesses to give video evidence from abroad. …
A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS: FOUR WEEKS IS EVEN LONGER IN LAW: CLAIMANT REFUSED INJUNCTION BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT ISSUED PROCEEDINGS
In Hayes v Pack & Ors [2022] EWHC 2508 (KB) Mr Justice Johnson refused to grant an injunction. The unusual nature of the application should not hide the fact that the application was refused because the claimant had failed to…
COST BITES 21: RECEIVING PARTY NOT CONFINED TO PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT COSTS WHEN THE BILL SETTLES FOR LESS THAN £75,000: “IT WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT’S GIFT TO MAKE A REALISTIC PART 36 OFFER”
In UK Sovereign Investments Ltd v Hussain [2022] EWHC 2390 (SCCO)Deputy Costs Judge Campbell rejected an argument that a receiving party’s costs should be confined to provisional assessment costs when the parties had agreed those costs at £59,000. The case…
WHY APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM IS A DANGEROUS BUSINESS: A CASE TODAY AND SOME REMINDERS
The judgment of HHJ Hodge KC in Harrington Scott Ltd v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Ltd (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – Solicitors – Loss of opportunity to pursue claim to trial – Damages – Defendant’s application to strike out and for summary judgment)…
COST BITES 18: APPROPRIATE CHARGING RATES WHEN A GRADE C IS CHARGED AT NOTHING: THE NEED FOR A “BLENDED” APPROACH
There are several interesting aspects to the judgment of Mr Justice Miles in Eurohome UK Mortgages 2007-1 Plc v Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch & Anor [2022] EWHC 2408 (Ch). One issue was the appropriate hourly rate when a grade…
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PARTY WAS NOT “NIT PICKING”
In McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) considered the appropriate response where a party fails to comply with the requirements for…
THE COURT WILL NOT READILY RE-OPEN THE AMBIT OF ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE: DECISION OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
I am grateful to Aidan Robertson KC for sending me a copy of the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, in Sportradar AG -v- Football Dataco Limited [2022] CAT 37 a copy of which can be…
COURT REFUSES TO GRANT RESTRICTIONS ON CLAIMANT’S ACCESS TO FORMER SOLICITOR’S FILE: NOT A CASE OF LIEN ON ME
In Ellis v John Hodge Solicitors (a firm) [2022] EWHC 2284 (Comm) His Honour Judge Pearce refused to place any restrictions on the disclosure of a litigation file to the claimant. The claimant was bringing an action alleging professional negligence…
CASES ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM IN 2022: WHAT LITIGATORS CAN, AND MUST LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2022
2022 has seen some significant decisions in relation to service of the claim form, with many claimants coming to grief due to basic errors made when serving, or attempting to serve. This webinar “One Day Out” but still too late:…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: RE-VISITING THE BASICS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS:
It is now just over 8 years since the Denton decision. Cases in relation to relief from sanction are still being reported regularly. This is a good time to re-visit the advice given shortly after the case as to increasing…
AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…
For the second time today I am writing about an injunction case which failed because the claimant had failed to prove compliance with an order for service. However this particular case has more sinister overtones. The claimant attempted to bring…
COST BITES 14: TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT AWARD THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATION FOR FURTHER TIME
We are returning to the judgment in Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1955 (Comm) Ms Lesley Anderson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). It is quite common for a party ordered to pay costs to…
PROVING THINGS 234: PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELAY BY EVIDENCE – NOT BY SUBMISSIONS
The judgment of Mr Justice Henshaw in Hays & Ors v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2022] EWHC 1648 (Comm) was on a very specific area of procedure. However there is one matter of more general interest. The need to have evidence…
THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON CAN BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY WHEN THERE IS A PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Power v Bernard Hastie & Company Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1927 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson held that the estate of a claimant who had obtained a provisional damages order can take advantage of that order. The order was…
COST BITES 8: CENTRAL LONDON HOURLY RATES: THE RATE DEPENDS ON THE LITIGATION NOT THE LITIGATOR
In Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors [2022] EWHC 1911 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge). Considered the appropriate hourly rate to be applied on an application. Although costs were being assessed on an indemnity…
COURT OF APPEAL REJECTS INGENIOUS ARGUMENT THAT PERMISSION GROUNDS SHOULD BE RE-OPENED – AFTER THE APPEAL
I have written more about applications for permission to appeal in the past few weeks than in the previous nine years. The Court of Appeal judgment in Ingenious Games LLP & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs…
SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: HAVE COGENT EVIDENCE (AND A DRAFT DEFENCE) TO HAND: DEFENDANT’S DELAY ALONE WOULD HAVE LED TO APPLICATION BEING REFUSED IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
I am grateful to Barrister Leslie Keegan for their note of the judgment of Master Cook in Buckingham -v- Elneil (15th July 2022)*. The Master refused the defendant’s application to set aside a default judgment. The defendant did not have…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WHICH INVOLVED A 1.15% DISCOUNT WAS A GENUINE ONE:EVEN A NARROW MARGIN MEANS DEFENDANTS FACE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES
In Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that a claimant’s offer that was some 1.15% less than the sum awarded…
APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”
In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence. The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 93: THE TIME FOR SERVING AN APPLICATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN MADE
The previous post about the judgment in AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) involved a case where the defendants had waited for two months to serve an application. This was not a critical…
DELAY IN APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: FAILURE TO BE PROMPT IS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR
In AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) Mr Justice Jacobs refused the defendants’ application to set aside a default judgment. The defendants’ delay in making the application, and then a further delay…
COST BITES 7: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS TRIED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE LITIGATION CHERRY
In Tinkler v Esken Ltd (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1802 (Ch) Mr Justice Leech ordered indemnity costs against a claimant who, in essence, attempted to relitigate a case he had lost on previously. “A principal difference between an order for…
CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT “JOB OFFER”: FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000
I am grateful to Aled Morris from Horwich Farrelly for sending me a transcript of the judgment of HHJ Murdock in Hawkins -v- Holmes (County Court at Leicester, 1st April 2022). It is a case where the court found the…
TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES … AND YOU’RE OUT
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. SEE THE LATER POST ON THE DECISION HERE. In Abbott & 3,499 Ors v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB) Master Davison rejected the claimant’s arguments that it was permissible…
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE
There were complicated factors involved in the judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch), however the action failed because the claimant was one day late in serving…
THE COURT CANNOT EXTEND TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION
A defendant is entitled to make an early Part 36 offer. This, undoubtedly causes difficulties for many claimants. The rules relating to late acceptance are fairly unsympathetic. Nor is it possible to for a claimant to make a prospective application…
A DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL CANNOT SIMPLY TURN THE CLOCK BACK: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPLICATION UNDER CPR 39.3
In Mabrouk v Murray [2022] EWCA Civ 960 the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in a case where the defendant failed to attend the trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application under CPR…
A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: “THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”.
One of the most imprudent things to do in litigation is to let a court order be made, not comply and then respond by arguing that the order should never have been made anyway. We see an example of this…
DEFENDANTS DEBARRED FROM DEFENDING A CLAIM CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL: “DEBARRING ORDERS SHOULD MEAN WHAT THEY SAY”
In Financial Conduct Authority v London Property Investments & Ors [2022] EWHC 1041 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower considered whether a defendant, debarred from participating in proceedings, could play any part in the trial of those proceedings. It also highlights…
RESPONDENTS TO AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: YOU SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY WRITTEN A LETTER AND SAVED YOURSELVES £67,000
In over three decades of writing about civil procedure I cannot recall any cases about costs following a permission to appeal hearing. There are now two cases this week. In Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1757 (QB)…
COST BITES 5: COSTS IN THE CASE APPROPRIATE ONCE A CLAIMANT HAD DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TO SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Chiswick International Holdings Ltd v Oakvest Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 799 (Comm) HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the appropriate order for costs when a party had offered security in an application for security…
COURT EXTENDS TIME TO BRING HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: MINOR CLAIMANTS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR
In CJ & Ors Wiltshire Police [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer extended the limitation period in a claim under the Human Rights Act. Although the claimants were ultimately unsuccessful there are important observations in relation to the…
WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHO DID NOT ENSURE THAT THEY HAD APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY
In Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1687 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors who had acted for a limited company without…
DIRE ISSUES ARISE WHEN AN EXPERT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO THE JOINT MEETING: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE
I have written before about the decision of Senior Master Fontaine in Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Ltd [2022] EWHC 479 (QB) where the claimants permission to rely on an expert witness was withdrawn because of conduct in relation to…
HOURLY RATES AGREED WITH LITIGATION FRIEND ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW: THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WHEN A SHORTFALL IN RECOVERABLE COSTS IS SOUGHT FROM A CLAIMANT
In EVX v Smith [2022] EWHC 1607 (SCCO) Costs Judge Brown held that the hourly rates charged by a solicitor to their own client are subject to review when the court is considering the amount that the claimant should pay…
COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH ARE RECOVERABLE: THEY WERE “INCIDENTAL” TO THE APPLICATION
In Gee, Re The Estate of [2022] EWHC 1590 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered an argument that costs incurred by the claimant in an attempt to prevent the breach of a court order, and…
You must be logged in to post a comment.