PROVING THINGS 118: IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO PROVE THINGS: “THAT FINAL SENTENCE WAS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING”
A body charged with the delivery of legal services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society (and which, incidentally, is in charge of the justice system) should be making decisions that are logical and justifiable – you…
UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT
In the judgment today in Atha & Co Solicitors v Liddle [2018] EWHC 1751 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of whether a failure to pay the correct fee on the issue of proceedings meant that a claim was…
“CHANGE IN THE LAW” JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Denton principles were considered by the Court of Appeal in QR (Pakistan), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413. The fact that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme…
WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS – BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING
In Drury v Rafique & Anor [2018] EWHC 1527 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss gave important guidance to those thinking of appealing a judgment on the basis of inadequate reasons. It is dangerous for an appellant to appeal on this grounds without…
AGGRESSIVE INTER-SOLICITOR CORRESPONDENCE: PISTOLS AT DAWN & THE DANGERS OF TALKING ON TRAINS: LESSONS FROM TWITTER
Earlier this week I tweeted a link to earlier posts on this blog “aggressive correspondence”. The responses on Twitter make for interesting (and entertaining) reading. The legal Twitterati provide quite a few lessons here – from the art of brevity…
HOME SECRETARY REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE EVIDENCE LATE: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE WAS USED EVEN IF DENTON DID NOT APPLY
In Teh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1586 (Admin) the Secretary of State was refused permission to rely on evidence served late. The issue was decided under the Overriding Objective, rather than by reference to the…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 9: COURT FEES, FEE REMISSION AND LIMITATION STANDSTILL AGREEMENTS
This is the penultimate post looking back at key series of the past five years. I am here revisiting two aspects of the law relating to court fees. Firstly the series on mitigating the effect of the (ridiculous) increase in…
WHEN THE OTHER SIDE’S LAWYER SENDS THE COURT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE DILEMMA OF THE PARALEGAL “WHISTLE BLOWER”
Several people have pointed out the judgment in Bruzas v Saxton [2018] EWHC 1619 (Fam) to me. This is a case that could have profound effects for the profession and the principles of legal professional privilege. This is the preliminary…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 6: PROPORTIONALITY: THE POSTS AND 12 PRACTICAL STEPS
The series “Proportionality & Survival for Litigators” started in December 2014. At the outset I said it could be a long-running and difficult series – it is definitely still ongoing. It remains the case that little written is on proportionality, …
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 5: THE JUDGE’S GUIDE TO ADVOCACY SERIES: TWO AND A HALF DONE
There are two completed series on judge’s guide to advocacy – and we are part way through the third. There is still plenty of material available and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fourth series. Advice has been…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 4: AVOIDING PROBLEMS AFTER MITCHELL: LIVING IN THE SHADOW OF THE BIKE
It is universally recognised that the Court of Appeal judgment in Mitchell was a mistake. The Master of the Rolls stated that the decision in Mitchell decision led to a “febrile atmosphere” leading to “unreasonable decision making”. There were 219…
THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER’S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH
Yesterday I gave a short summary of the decision in Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. This is a case worth looking at in detail. The substantive case settled for £50,000 shortly after issue. The question of…
THE LIMITS OF DECLARATORY RELIEF: THE DANGERS OF APPLYING FOR IT: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS (AND PLEADINGS) FAIL TO RAISE THE ROOF
I am grateful to my colleague John de Waal QC at Hardwicke for bringing my attention to the judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Office Depot International (UK) Ltd v UBS Asset Management (UK) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1494 (TCC). It…
PROVING THINGS 112: ITS NO USE JUST WAVING ACCOUNTANT’S REPORTS AROUND
In Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch) the respondent relied on accountant’s reports in an attempt to prove its case. The case shows that it is insufficient just to produce accounts. Evidence has to…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED
In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence. It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…
JUDGES CANNOT MAGICALLY ACQUIRE INFORMATION BY OSMOSIS: THE DUTY ON PARTIES TO ENCAPSULATE LONG-RUNNING LITIGATION
In SC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2018] EWHC 1368 (Comm) Patrica Robertson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) reminded practitioners that judges have no magical powers. When a long-running case on a “grand scale” comes before the court…
PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SEE THE REPORT HERE In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 1345 (QB) Master Cook allowed a defendant’s application for summary judgment. It is a classic case of a…
TRANSFER FROM COUNTY COURT TO HIGH COURT: YOU CAN ASK FOR THIS ONLY ONCE: A DISCRETION TO BE EXERCISED “WITH GREAT CIRCUMSPECTION”
In Bass v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 1297 (QB) Master Davison held it was an abuse of process for a party to make an application to transfer to the High Court when a similar application had been made, and refused,…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3 PART 5: LAW AND THE WHIRLIGIG OF TIME: LEARNING TO LOSE A CASE WELL
It is difficult to review a book like Stephen Sedley’s Law and the Whirligig of Time. A wide ranging series of essays that covers everything from the “role of the judge ” to Bob Dylan and Under Milk Wood. It…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ALLEGATION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A HEARING: HIGH COURT DECISION: NO REQUIREMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
In Alpha Insurance A/S v Roche & Anor [2018] EWHC 1342 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that the circuit judge should have allowed a claim of fundamental dishonesty to be heard. She allowed an appeal and held that the court should…
THE IMPORTANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND TIME: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION
This post is caused by a search term that arrived on this blog today “Is an application for an extension of time an application for relief from sanctions?”. The short answer to that is – it depends. An application made after…
“NOTHING SHORT OF A RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY CAN AMOUNT TO A PERSONAL INJURY”: SECTION 33 CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS SUFFERED “FEAR”
The judgment of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB) (24 May 2018) considers the question of what is an “injury” for the purpose of Section 33 of the Limitation Act…
“AVOIDING PAROCHIALISM”: TRANSFER BETWEEN DIVISIONS – NO EVIDENCE ONE DIVISION IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER
In Mezvinsky & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1261 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh refused an application to transfer from the Business and Property Courts to the Media and Communications List. “the court hearing an application for transfer must be…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY
It is surprising how many witness statements I have read (both in practice and in the reports) that contain invective material. Litigants appear to think it important, and effective, that they disparage their opponents. Litigants should be warned that this…
BELIEVING YOUR CLIENTS: CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF “TRUTH” AND “LIES”: WHAT DOES THE LAWYER DO?
There are two sources for this post. The first is a blog by Lucy Reed on Pink Tape “It’s not my job to believe you – here’s why” ; the second is the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. …
FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT – EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES
The judgment today in Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1063 (QB) illustrates the importance of taking adequate witness statements. It shows that a failure to review the situation and take a full proof of evidence…
PROVING THINGS 94: : THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO CHOOSE BOTH THE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND AND SOLICITOR: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FAR FROM COMPELLING
There are some audacious applications. However an application by defendants that attempts to dictate who the claimant’s litigation friend should be, and who their solicitor should be, should – at the very least – be backed up by firm evidence. …
PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW
I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents. This is what happened…
YOUR CLAIM FORM IS, WELL, PRETTY DAMN HOPELESS – AND WITNESS EVIDENCE CAN’T PUT IT RIGHT
The observations made by Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd [2018] EWHC 985 (Comm) are of general interest. They highlight the need for statements of case to be properly particularised and also highlight the dangerous…
JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION
There are many matters of interest in the short judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Watkins, R (On the Application Of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court [2018] EWHC 1029, a rare example of a party trying to judicially review a…
DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO A CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT FAILED TO GET PERMISSION TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS
Although the Denton principles are much more settled it is prudent to keep a weather eye on cases where they are considered. His Honour Judge Davis-White QC (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division in Leeds) applied the Denton principles in a…
NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT
In an earlier post about the case of P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 we looked at an example where the parties (all the parties in the case) had correctly used the guidance in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002]…
LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS AND LATE EVIDENCE: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BETTER: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION: A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO SAY AND DO
In The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor (Procedural Matters) [2018] HC 976 (Admin) the Divisional Court took care to file a supplemental judgment that dealt…
WHEN THE LIMITATION ACT IS NOT YOUR BEST FRIEND: “SHEER INCOMPETENCE” DOES NOT PERSUADE A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
CPR 17.(4) is always one of the most “challenging” sections of the Limitation Act in practice. Amending the name of a party after the expiry of the limitation period is not always easy. The judgment in Best Friends Group & Anor…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE
If there is anything that suffers from being taken for granted it is the basic schedule and counter-schedule. This is demonstrated in the judgment available today in Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip. The appeal…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 4: WHAT NOT TO PUT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT OPINION, SUBMISSION, SPECULATION AND INNUENDO”
This is a very basic point. A witness statement should consist of evidence. That principle is often breached in interlocutory applications, as we have seen. However when a lawyer does this, or allows it to happen, in a witness statement…
PROVING THINGS 88: MATTERS YOU HAVE TO PROVE IF YOU WANT AN INJUNCTION: THE IMPACT OF A SIX MONTH DELAY IN APPLYING
In Blade Motor Group Ltd v Reynolds & Reynolds Ltd [2018] EWHC 497 (Ch) an applicant for an injunction failed because it failed to prove the basic requirements. The fact that there was a six-month delay in applying for the injunction…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 2: “EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT” OF AN APPLICATION
The previous post looked at some of the basic requirements of an application to the court. Here we look at the evidence that may be needed in support of an application. The key point here being “evidence”. Numerous hours are…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 1: THE HUMBLE APPLICATION: WORDING AND TIMING
Last year I was giving an in-house talk at a very prominent firm of litigation solicitors. The litigation partner present (a person of immense experience) made the point that the firm were continually having talks and education on esoteric and…
“PERSUASION”: APPLICATIONS & EVIDENCE: ATTEND A COURSE AND SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LITERACY: 18th APRIL 2018 – LINCOLN’S INN
On the 18th April 2018 I am involved in a talk at Hardwicke, in Lincoln’s Inn. With a number of my colleagues we are talking on “Persuasion” Applications and Evidence for Defendants and Insurers”. All proceeds go directly to a…
YOU APPEAL DECISIONS NOT REASONS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED IN RELATION TO AN ARGUMENT THAT DID NOT CHANGE OUTCOME OF THE CASE
In Civilians v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 690 (QB) Mr Justice Leggatt rejected the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. The proposed appeal was wholly academic in the sense that it had no impact on the outcome of the case. THE…
APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY: IF YOU WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT THEN MAKE SURE YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR IT
On the 18th April 2018 I am, with a number of my colleagues from Hardwicke, giving a talk on “Applications for Defendants”*. The judgment this week in St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) may well feature. It…
A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC
In Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 227 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser made it clear that draft judgments were not to be taken as an invitation to the parties to embark on a second round of submissions….
MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: “JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS”
In EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) carried out a comprehensive review of the authorities relating to the latitude to be afforded to litigants in person. It…
THE TIME FOR CHALLENGING A BILL HAS PROBABLY LONG GONE: AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY UP
There is a battle (or a series of skirmishes) going on at present in relation to solicitors charging success fees to their clients in personal injury cases. This has led to numerous applications to the courts for disclosure. The former…
NO “GRANDSTANDING” PLEASE: THE COURT IS NOT ASSISTED BY RHETORICAL POINTS
It has been a week for the courts commenting on advocates. Earlier we had complaints of advocates interrupting each other. Today we have complaints of “grandstanding”. Reminding advocates that their task is to deal with the legal issues at hand…
SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO 100% SUCCESS FEE UPHELD ON APPEAL: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
In Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) Mr Justice Soole refused a solicitor’s appeal against a decision reducing the success fee from 100% to 15%. This is a very important decision for claimant personal injury lawyers who, habitually,…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A DUTY ON A DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?
It was unlikely that the decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 would put an end to all issues relating to service of the claim form. There is a tantalising judgment* of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare…
You must be logged in to post a comment.