CLAIMANT’S PART 36 “SUBJECT TO A NIL CRU” WAS A VALID OFFER: IF THE DEFENDANT WAS CONFUSED THEY SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION
The judgment of District Judge Hickinbottom in Gibbons -v- Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (o4/06/2019), discussed in an earlier post, also has an interesting section in relation to a Part 36 offer. “It seems to me the Defendant could…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
In Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application for disclosure of the defendants’ funding arrangements. “Beyond this is the common-sense point, that the Court will not be keen to allow…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION: A LAWYER’S GUIDE: PREFACE FOR THE SERIES
I am re-writing and expanding upon an earlier series of posts on the topic of avoiding negligence claims. This is mainly aimed at personal injury practitioners, however many of the posts relate to procedure and will be of more general…
PROVING THINGS 160: DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED: COURT CAN DIRECT THAT EXTRA EVIDENCE BE FILED
In Hendry v Hendry & Ors [2019] EWHC 1976 (Ch) Master Shuman refused the claimant’s application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. THE CASE The claimant was married…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 55: THE 70 KEY POINTS OF THE DENTON JUDGMENT
The judgment in Denton -v- White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 was given five years ago. It is a case that is still cited daily in the courts. It can be misunderstood or misquoted. Here are the 70 key points of this…
RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: A COMMENT FROM AN ELDERLY COSTS NERD
Yesterday I wrote on rights of audience. This led to a great deal of comment on Twitter and a response from an elderly costs nerd (who wishes to remain anonymous) has commented on this case: “Your post today about the…
ADVOCATES, ROAD MAPS AND DEPARTING FROM THE STRUCTURE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
There is an interesting passage in the judgment of Turner J in Court Enforcement Services Ltd v Burlington Credit Ltd [2019] EWHC 1920 (QB) relating to written submissions and advocacy. “… there appears to me to be a growing trend…
RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAMBERS? CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE SENT HOME…
I am grateful to barrister Christopher Buckingham for sending me a copy of the judgment in National Westminster Bank -v- Smith. (27th February 2019). A copy of which is attached here E6BA4N32 – National Westminster Bank PLC v Smith (27.02.19)…
PROVING THINGS 157: DEFECTS IN EVIDENCE “SO FUNDAMENTAL” THAT APPLICATION DISMISSED
In Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd & Ors v Virgin Media Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1827 (Ch) Mr Recorder Campbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application on the grounds that the evidence was…
ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (1): READ THIS CASE: BE WARY OF OPENING YOUR MOUTH TOO WIDE: TURN DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND GET £2.00 INSTEAD
A member of my family qualifies as a solicitor tomorrow and starts working in litigation. I have been pondering the best advice to give a newly qualified litigation solicitor. I intended a recap post of all those cases where litigants…
THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT
There is a judgment today on BAILLI in a family case. The case appears to be subject to reporting restrictions so I do not propose to link to it, or even name it, until these are clarified. However what is…
CASE NOT STRUCK OUT AFTER A FOUR YEAR DELAY: ALTERNATIVE “SANCTION” ORDERED INSTEAD
In Alba Exotic Fruit SH PK v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. [2019] EWHC 1779 (Comm) HHJ Rawlings considered the appropriate sanction where there had been a four year delay by the claimant in pursuing an action. This case is…
A SECOND – IDENTICAL – APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE
In Lambert v Forest of Dean District Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 1763 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen rejected an application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. An identical application had been made earlier and struck out…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES
This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those…
I DON’T WANT YOUR SOLICITORS TO ACT FOR YOU: CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION REFUSED
In Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd & Anor v Product Specialities Inc (t/a Final Touch) & Anor [2019] EWHC 1733 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon dismissed the claimant’s application for an injunction to prevent the defendants’ solicitors acting for them. THE CASE The…
INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: REASONS FOR REFUSING PERMISSION NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE
I wrote on the judgment in I – interim payment of costs. in an earlier post . I subsequently wrote that the defendant had been refused permission to appeal. The reasons are available on the Switalskis website, here. ” it seems entirely…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 48: AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE IS A REHEARING AND NOT A REVIEW (& NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE TIBBLES CRITERIA GETTING ITS CLAWS INTO THE CASE EITHER)
One point that arose from the Court of Appeal decision in Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 contains observations which indicate that it is easy to lose sight of a basic point in relation to orders…
WHY DEFENDANTS HAVE TO KNOW THE RULES ABOUT SERVICE AND JURISDICTION AND ACT PROMPTLY: YOU’LL FIND YOURSELVES MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
The judgment today in Babcock Marine (Clyde) Ltd v HS Barrier Coatings Ltd [2019] EWHC 1659 (TCC) highlights the need for defendants to be prompt if they are making an application in relation to service or jurisdiction. CPR 11 gives…
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE SET ASIDE: THE DANGERS OF SEEKING TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF A CLAIM FORM ON A WITHOUT NOTICE BASIS – EXEMPLIFIED
In Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by defendants who objected to an extension of time being granted for service of the claim form. It is an object…
A PARTY CAN’T DUMP DOCUMENTS ON THEIR OPPONENT THE NIGHT BEFORE A HEARING: JUDGE REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EVIDENCE SERVED VERY LATE
In Willow Corp S.À.R.L. v MTD Contractors Ltd [2019] EWHC 1591 (TCC) Mr Justice Pepperall refused to allow a party to rely on documents served very late in an application for summary judgment. The late “dumping” of documents, the evening…
SHOULD THE COURT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL ON LIMITATION? THE FUTILITY OF CITING DECIDED CASES: “SCRIPTURE FROM WHICH THE DEVIL MAY FREELY QUOTE”
In Hutson v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 1608 (QB) Mr Justice Turner refused the defendant’s application for a split trial on limitation in a group action. The judgment makes it clear that there is no “burden” on any…
BENCH WARRANT ISSUED IN CIVIL ACTION: WARRANT ISSUED TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S ATTENDANCE AT A HEARING
In Hanson & Ors v Carlino & Anor [2019] EWHC 1366 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss issued a bench warrant to ensure a defendant’s attendance at a hearing. The defendant had a history of non-compliance and attempts to avoid the…
MAKING APPLICATIONS IN ADVANCE OF A BREACH: WHY A STITCH IN TIME OFTEN, BUT NOT INVARIABLY, SAVES AN APPLICANT
The post earlier today about the decision in Bedzhamov & Ors Re Vneshprombank LLC [2019] EWHC 1430 (Ch) was an example of the court refusing an application for an extension of time made in advance of the date of breach. The…
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION MADE AHEAD OF TIME REFUSED: AN UNREASONABLE SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY
In Bedzhamov & Ors Re Vneshprombank LLC [2019] EWHC 1430 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk refused an application for an extension of time that had been made ahead of the date of compliance. In these circumstances the courts will normally grant…
SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (AS A BLOG): A REVIEW OF ADVICE RECEIVED FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND ACROSS THE WORLD
Today marks the 6th anniversary of the blog. Last year I did a detailed review of many of the series and key points over the previous years. To celebrate this year I am concentrating on the contributions made by others….
THINKING OF MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR A WITHOUT NOTICE INJUNCTION? BEST READ THIS JUDGMENT
Any public body, indeed anyone, considering making an application for a without notice injunction is best advised to read the judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Birmingham City Council v Afsar & Ors [2019] EWHC 1560 (QB). “Urgency can…
WITHOUT NOTICE INJUNCTIONS 1: CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION GOES DOWN THE PAN
The judgment in Brothers Enterprises Ltd v New World Hospitality UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2455 (Ch) has only recently arrived on BAILLI. However it is a case that shows the importance of disclosure in relation to without notice injunctions. What…
DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON “SPECIALIST” EVIDENCE AS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED
In Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) Master Davison refused the defendant’s application to rely on a specialist report in relation to the claimant’s life expectancy. The judgment also contains an important summary of the circumstances in…
AN OFFER THAT IMPOSES A CONDITION AS TO COSTS IS NOT A VALID PART 36 OFFER: MERE FAILURE TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS
In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors (Costs) [2019] EWHC 1545 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that an offer that attempted to limit costs was not a valid Part 36 offer. The judge…
FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)
In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…
THE DANGERS OF A LAWYER GIVING EVIDENCE: A “SOMEWHAT STRANGLED VERSION” OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION & BELIEF: SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION DISMISSED BECAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE
There are numerous posts on the blog about the need for first-hand evidence to be given, and the dangers of a lawyer making witness statements. These risks are exemplified in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in The David…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 APPLICATION SUCCESSFUL – 38 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT COMPLAINED OF
In FZO v Adams & Anor [2018] EWHC 3584 (QB) Mrs Justice Cutts exercised the Section 33 discretion in a case brought 25 – 30 years after the expiry of the applicable limitation period and where the events happened 38…
COSTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND LITIGATION FRIENDS: COURT HAS A DISCRETION TO ORDER COSTS AGAINST CHILD LITIGANTS
In the judgment today in Barker v Confiànce Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1401 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered whether costs could be ordered against child claimants and/or their litigation friend. He found that no special principles apply to prevent…
ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)
I am looking again at the decision in O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23. That case predates the more recent Court of Appeal judgment in Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898. However it is another example of a party attempting to use the…
PROVING THINGS 153: “YOU DO NOT WIN A CASE ON INCONSISTENCIES”: WHEN THE APPLICANTS “PURSUED A CONFUSED AND POORLY EVIDENCED CASE FOR LITTLE PURPOSE”
Most cases are lost not on issues of law but on issues of evidence. In Stewart & Ors v Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber was particularly scathing of the quality of the applicants’ evidence. The judgment contains…
COURT OF APPEAL: NOT TOO KEEN ON PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR “ACADEMIC” ARGUMENTS
In J-S (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 894, the Court of Appeal declined to hear an argument that was “academic”. It also gave guidance to judges when considering applications for permission to appeal on the “other compelling reason for an appeal”…
RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS – ISN’T THAT EASY : WITH A HOMAGE TO THE WIT AND WISDOM OF RALPH GUIDE DOG (RETIRED)
I got nudged into writing this post on withdrawing from admissions by Ralph Guide Dog, (Retired). So, especially for Ralph – who has always taken a keen interest in all things legal, the latest High Court decision on resiling from…
ANOTHER TRIAL BUNDLE CASE: ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE TRIAL BUNDLE: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT DISMISSED
In Al-Balhaa v Raphael & Ors [2019] EWHC 1323 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol upheld a finding that the action was struck out because of the claimant’s failure to prepare a trial bundle and relief from sanctions should not be granted. …
PART 36 OFFER ON COSTS THAT STATES IT IS “EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST” IS STILL A VALID OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED
I am grateful to barrister Jamie Carpenter for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Nicol in Horne -v- Prescot (No 1) Ltd 2019 1322 (QB). The case relates to whether a Part 36 offer on costs,…
ADVICE FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND AROUND THE WORLD: “CROWD SOURCED” GUIDANCE: THANKS FOR ALL THE TWEETS
There have been a number of occasions when I have put contributions from people on Twitter on this blog. This is usually in response to specific questions and issues raised. People have been generous in their time and Advice. I…
PROVING THINGS 150: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MOVE FROM LEGAL AID TO CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS A REASONABLE STEP
In YZ v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC B4 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker found that the claimant had not established good grounds for changing from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement. Although this is a costs issue, it…
SIGNATURES, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND STATEMENTS OF TRUTH: A BRIEF REFRESHER
One aspect of the decision in Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 that may be unique is the fact that the court will be considering the statement of truth certified by an electronic signature. That case emphasises, if…
TRYING TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT’S REPORT: WHEN DO THE DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY?
In Global Horizons Corporation -v- Gray [2019] EWHC 1132 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold considered the question of when the Denton principles apply to service of a “supplementary” medical report. “… the question of whether an application for permission to…
TELEPHONE HEARINGS WHEN COUNSEL WON’T ANSWER THE TELEPHONE: THE UNHAPPY LORD JUSTICE
There is a short judgment recently arrived on BAILLI which fits in well with the earlier post about telephone and electronic hearings. In Nixon & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2694 Lord Justice…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 45: THE COURT CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL
We are looking at CPR 33.2(3) in relation to the reducing of witnesses or identifying issues prior to trial. THE RULE CPR 32.2(3) “(3) The court may give directions – (a) identifying or limiting the issues to which factual…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 4: TIME ESTIMATES FOR HEARINGS (AND WHY YOU SHOULD VISIT KINGSTON UPON HULL)
There were difficult choices to be made when delegates selected their particular lectures at the recent APIL conference. In a show of northern solidarity (and because I am interested in these kind of things) I went to see District Judge…
You must be logged in to post a comment.