COURT REFUSES TO MAKE AN ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR: THE DANGERS OF LEAVING SERVICE ISSUES TO THE LAST MINUTE
Another aspect of the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in SMO v Tiktok Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 489 (QB) relates to the claimant’s application to serve the claim form by alternative method. This case illustrates how difficult this order…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: TIME IS ALWAYS TICKING
There are a number of issues relating to service of the claim form in the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in SMO v Tiktok Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 489 (QB). Here we look at the judge’s refusal to grant…
THE COURTS WILL RARELY DETERMINE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In Stannard -v- Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC) HHJ Walden-Smith dismissed the defendant’s application that the issue of alleged fundamental dishonesty be heard as a preliminary issue and the action struck out. The judge held it was…
RESERVED JUDGMENTS: IF YOU DON’T APPLY FOR THE COSTS IN TIME THEN YOU DON’T GET THEM: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Preston v Beaumont [2022] EWHC 440 (Ch) Richard Farnhill, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, found that a successful respondent to an appeal could not recover costs. There had been a failure to comply with the…
A PART 36 OFFER SHOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE: DEFENDANT LOOKING FOR STRAWS IN THE WIND
In FKJ v RVT & Ors [2022] EWHC 411 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld a decision that a claimant’s Part 36 offer could not be used in interlocutory proceedings. This is a decision on its own facts and the…
COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: “THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH IS NO EMPTY FORMALITY”
In Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 230 the Court of Appeal upheld a judge’s decision not to allow the defendants permission to withdraw an admission. It is an important reminder of the quality of the…
GUIDANCE FOR ADVOCATES: 12 JUDGES CAN’T BE WRONG – “ONLY JUDGES MAY MAKE BAD JOKES”
I am here re-visiting a series of posts from 2016, where we looked at guidance given to advocates by judges. As part of the series looking at the advice that judges give to advocates (and how this relates to civil…
YOU CAN’T QUIT – YOU’RE FIRED: JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIM RATHER THAN ALLOW CLAIMANTS TO DISCONTINUE
In Vale SA v Steinmetz & Ors [2022] EWHC 343 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker decided an unusual issue. Rather than allow claimants to discontinue the action he dismissed it. THE CASE The parties were part way through a trial,…
DELAY IN MAKING AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM LEADS TO JOINDER BEING REFUSED (A MUCH MORE BORING TAKE ON THE VARDY -v- ROONEY CASE)
In Vardy v Rooney & Anor [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn refused the defendant’s application for joinder of an additional party. One major element in that decision was the delay in making the application, and the total absence…
WHEN DOES A LITIGANT HAVE CAPACITY? AVOIDING CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS: THE NEED FOR LEGAL ADVICE IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR
There is an interesting discussion of capacity to litigate in the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan & Ors [2021] EWFC 6. It is also worth remarking on the judge’s comments on how the expert’s evidence in…
SEEKING TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY, A FORMAL APPLICATION IS REQUIRED: OVERIDING OBJECTIVE LEADS TO REFUSAL
In JD Group Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 202 (Ch) Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello QC refused an application to adduce new evidence after a trial had ended, and judgment was pending. A formal application was required, Denton principles…
JUDGE GRANTS DEFENDANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO LATE FILING OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
In Cambpell v Chief Land Registrar [2022] EWHC 200 (Ch) HHJ Hodge (sitting as a judge of the High Court) granted the defendant relief from sanctions following its failure to acknowledge service in time. “it would be unjust if two…
SECURITY FOR COSTS CANNOT BE GIVEN BY BITCOIN: HARD CASH RULES THE DAY
In Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) Master Clark rejected an application that security for costs be given by Bitcoin. The fluctuating values of Bitcoin would not provide the defendants…
COURT OF APPEAL ISSUE WARNING AGAINST EXCESSIVE COSTS (INCLUDING THE COSTS OF APPEALS)
In The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 the Court of Appeal were concerned about the costs involved in litigation on what were, essentially, preliminary issues. This included the…
THE PROFOUND DIFFICULTIES IN REHEARING AN APPLICATION WHERE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS REFUSED: AN “EXCEPTIONAL JURISDICTION”: NUMEROUS BITES OF THE CHERRY NOT EASILY ALLOWED
In Dal v Bicknell & Anor [2022] EWHC 120 (Ch) Mr Justice Edwin Johnson considered the circumstances in which a party, refused permission to appeal, could seek to re-open the decision to refuse permission. The cases in which that can…
CASE STRUCK OUT DUE TO CLAIMANT’S INACTIVITY: YOU CAN’T “WAREHOUSE” A COURT ACTION
In Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court judge) struck out an action on the grounds of the claimant’s delay. The case had been “warehoused” and the claimant had not adduced…
LIMITATION, SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: A FAIR TRIAL WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND CLAIMANTS’ ACTION DISMISSED
The previous post looked at the decision in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) in relation to the issue of vicarious liability. However it is important to note that the claimants did not succeed in…
CONDUCT AND COSTS: SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT RECOVERS – NOTHING
In European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Ltd v Treon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2866 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles considered issues relating to costs after a defendant had succeeded at trial because the claimant’s action was statute barred. The judge…
THE SCOPE OF A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: DISPUTED EVIDENCE IS “GRIST TO THE MILL”
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY MR JUSTICE JOHNSON, SEE Lisa Jones v Richard Slade And Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 1968 (QB) In Jones -v- Richard Slade & Co Ltd [2021] EWHC B28 (Costs) Costs Judge Rowley rejected the defendant’s…
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND THE RULE IN HOLLINGTON -v- HEWTHORN: FACTUAL FINDINGS BY ONE JUDGE CANNOT BIND ANOTHER JUDGE IN DIFFERENT PROCEEDINGS
The judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2021] EWHC 3440 (Ch) provides enough material for half a dozen seminars on civil evidence. Here we look at one aspect of it, the rule in Hollington -v-…
DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RESILE FROM ADMISSION: GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD “REFLECT BADLY ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM”
In Shah v London Borough of Barnet [2021] EWHC 2631 (QB) Master Stevens refused the defendant’s application for permission to resile from a pre-action admission. “On the particular facts of this case, I believe it would reflect poorly on the…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO AMEND ITS OWN APPLICATION: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
There are few judgments in relation to the amendment of applications. This issue was considered by Deputy Master Francis in Cavadore Ltd & Anor v Jawa & Anor [2021] EWHC 3382 (Ch). The claimant’s application to amend its application was…
LATE SERVICE OF SCHEDULE OF COSTS LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT (WITH A SUBSTANTIAL INTERIM PAYMENT)
In Vine v Belfield [2021] EWHC 3068 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin considered the position where a claimant had failed to file a Schedule of Costs. He held that the appropriate course of action was to make an order for detailed…
THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: THE DANGERS OF DEPARTING FROM THE CORRECT FORM: A “CHAOTIC” SCHEDULE OF COSTS IS NEVER GOING TO HELP YOUR CAUSE
In Changing Climates Ltd v Warmaway Ltd [2021] EWHC 3117 (TCC) HHJ Sarah Watson issued a warning about departing from the standard form when seeking a summary assessment of costs after a hearing. “There is a reason that the court…
SOCIAL MEDIA AND DISCLOSURE: A REMINDER OF THE SOLICITOR’S DUTIES
The short judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Lock v Ravi-Shankar [2021] EWHC 3247 (QB) highlights a number of important issues in relation to the solicitor’s duty, disclosure and social media in particular. “It is necessary for solicitors to…
“IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ORAL ADVOCACY TO REDUCE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO LITTLE MORE THAN A SERIES OF REFERENCES THAT A JUDGE CAN THEN LEFT TO FIND ACROSS A VAST BUNDLE”
The closing lines of the judgment of HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm) highlight many issues in relation to civil advocacy. In particular…
WHEN A CLAIMANT TRIES TO USE A REPLY TO INTRODUCE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION: PERMISSION TO AMEND REPLY REFUSED
In Powis Street Estates (No 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 3269 (Ch) Deputy Master McQuail considered that parts of a Reply was an attempt to introduce a new cause of action. The claimant was not given…
A DEFENDANT CAN RARELY (IF EVER) COMPEL A CLAIMANT TO JOIN OTHER DEFENDANTS TO AN ACTION: COURT OF APPEAL EXTRACTS CLAIMANT FROM A DIFFICULT SITUATION
In Pawley v Whitecross Dental Care Ltd & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1827 the Court of Appeal overturned an order that allowed a defendant to add additional defendants to a claim. Making such an order exposed the claimant to the…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WHEN THE DEFENDANT NEEDS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO TAKE POINTS AS TO SERVICE: PROBLEMS BORN IN THE US OF A.
In Joe Macari Servicing Ltd v Chequered Flag International Inc [2021] EWHC 3175 (QB) Master Dagnall considered a case where the defendant required an extension of time in order to take points in relation to service of proceedings. The Master…
SETTING ASIDE A JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD: “MAINTAINING THE LIE ALL THE WAY TO THE COURT OF APPEAL”
The Court of Appeal judgment in Park v CNH Industrial Capital Europe Ltd (t/a CNH Capital) [2021] EWCA Civ 1766 contains an important discussion of the circumstances in which it is possible to bring a second action to set aside…
APPLICATIONS AND INTERLOCUTORY HEARINGS (PLUS APPLYING FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME)
On the 2nd December 2021 I am giving a webinar “Applications and Interlocutory Hearings: A Practitioner’s Guide”. Since applications are made, and resisted, on a regular basis it is easy to overlook the underlying rules and case law. This webinar…
IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS “OWN YOUR MISTAKES”: YOU HAVE TO SERVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN FOUR MONTHS: CLAIMANT IN ERROR, BUT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED
The judgment in Holterman v Electrium Sales Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3915 (TCC) shows a “classic” error in relation to service of proceedings. The claimant served the claim form at the end of the relevant period, and the particulars…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOR LATE SERVICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE: A POINT FOR DEFENDANTS TO WATCH
There are two point missed, surprisingly often, by defendants who want to take a point as to service. The first is that an acknowledgment of service must be served timeously, the second is that an application under CPR Part 11…
CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS AN APPROPRIATE STEP IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A “REDUNDANT” SOLDIER
There is a procedural issue considered in the judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Malone v Ministry of Defence [2021] EWHC 2958 (QB). The judge held that it was appropriate for the Ministry of Defence, facing a claim in…
ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: A RECAP: THIS MAY GO ON A BIT…
The post last week in relation to inaccurate time estimates led to some comments that there was an absence of guidance on time estimates. I am not sure this is true. There are at least half a dozen posts on…
TIME ESTIMATES: “WILDLY OPTIMISTIC TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY”: AN UNHAPPY JUDGE
In E v B (Interim Maintenance Inaccurate Time Estimate) [2021] EWFC 90 Recorder Chandler made some observations on the difficulties the courts face when the parties list hearings with inadequate time estimates. These are matters of general interest relating to…
DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FIGURES SET OUT IN COUNTER-SCHEDULE
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Haggerty-Garton & Ors v Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd [2021] EWHC 2924 (QB) is interesting in that it shows the application of Scottish principles of damages to a fatal case (the award was much…
INSURER’S APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT REFUSED ON THE BASIS OF INEXCUSABLE DELAY
In Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 2913 (QB) Master Thornett refused an insurer’s application to set aside judgment on the grounds that the application was not made “promptly”. THE CASE The claimant brought…
WITNESS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE GIVEN IN TRIAL NOT PERMITTED: COURT ANXIOUS TO AVOID A NEVER ENDING SPIRAL
In Brake & Ors v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd (New Witness Statement) [2021] EWHC 2882 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews refused an application for permission to adduce an additional witness statement. “Of course, it is natural for litigants to…
COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION NOT TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER: 28,000 CLAIMS BITE THE DUST
In the decision today in Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading And Shipping Co. Ltd & Anor (Appeal 3: Refusal to Extend Time)[2021] EWCA Civ 1559 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to grant extensions of time…
IS A CLUB YARD A “PUBLIC PLACE”? REVERSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO INSURER DEFENDANTS
In Brown v Fisk & Ors [2021] EWHC 2769 (QB) Master Dagnall granted reverse summary jugment to an insurer defendant. This involved consideration of whether a yard was a “public place” under s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. THE…
RECORDING COURT PROCEEDING WITHOUT PERMISSION: THE PROBLEM ARISES – AGAIN
In Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc & Ors v Hussain & Ors [2021] EWHC 2766 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles gave a judgment in another case where a party had recorded proceedings without permission. Permission was given retrospectively, however this was…
IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN: MISSIVES FROM THE BENCH: “THAT ONE’S HALF BLIND AND HALF DEAF. I CALL HIM THE COURT OF APPEAL”
In the run up to Halloween I thought I would repeat some of the “scary” posts on this blog. Here we look at a post from November 2018, a collection of Twitter comments about judicial interventions. “DJ Tynas at Macclesfield…
WHEN AT COURT MAKE SURE YOU CAN ALWAYS BE FOUND: PROMPTNESS, SETTING ASIDE AND CPR 39.3(5)
In Altaf & Ors v Close Brothers Ltd [2021] EWHC 2823 (QB) Mr Justice Fordham considered an application made by a defendant who left the court before the trial started. It highlights the importance of every litigant, once they arrive…
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED
In Parkes v Hall & Ors [2021] EWHC 2824 (QB) Sir Andrew Nicol refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions following failure to comply with a peremptory order. THE CASE The defendants were ordered to file further particulars…
THE NEED FOR ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: A PLEA FROM THE BENCH: A 2 1/2 HOUR TIME ESTIMATE REQUIRED TWO DAYS
This is not the first time this blog has noted judicial comments on the need for realistic time estimates. This can be seen clearly in the judgment of HHJ Russen QC in Potgieter v Village [2021] EW Misc 18 (CC)….
STATEMENTS OF OPINION AND COMMENT WILL BE REDACTED: WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS: THE NEW RULES CONSIDERED
The judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2747 is one of the first times the new provisions on witness statements in the Business and Property Courts have been considered by…
WASTED COSTS AND THE SOLICITOR AS TARGET: “HEAVY SATELLITE LITIGATION IS TO BE DEPRECATED”
The judgment of Mr Justice Bryan in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 2702 (Comm) is essential reading for anyone contemplating making a wasted costs application. It is, of course, equally important for anyone defending such…
THE DANGEROUS USE OF “PRECEDENTS”: WHEN 28 DIVORCE PETITIONS MAKE IDENTICAL ALLEGATIONS THEN SOMETHING IS NOT QUITE RIGHT..
The judgment of Mr Justice Moor in Yorston & Ors, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions) [2021] EWFC 80 makes interesting reading. The judge was considering a referral from a court which found that 28 divorce petitions, based on…
AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE: DRAFT JUDGMENTS ARE SACROSANCT: ALLEGATIONS OF DISCLOSURE, AND OF “JUDGE’S OFFICE” LEAKING LIKE A SIEVE WERE TOTALLY MISFOUNDED
The judgment in Optis Cellular Technology Inc & Anor v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2694 (Pat) is one of the most extraordinary I have read. It concerns the important principle that draft judgments sent out by…
You must be logged in to post a comment.