WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
In this case a wasted costs order was made against a firm of solicitors for breach of warranty of authority. The stated to the defendant and the court, and believed, that they were instructed by the claimant’s insurers when, in…
MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
If you could not attend the webinar on the practical implications of the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur yesterday it is now available “on demand”. The Mazur decision confirms that authorised individuals may delegate tasks within the conduct of…
USEFUL CHECKLISTS TO HELP ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MAZUR: PART OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED WITH THE WEBINAR ON THE 9th APRIL
The webinar on Thursday provides a wealth of material in relation to compliance with the Court of Appeal guidance as to the conduct of litigation after the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur. In addition there is a series of…
COST BITES 370: THE OTHER PART OF THE CAR PARKING SAGA: COURT AWARDS COSTS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT IN A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK CASE
Here we return to the case considered in the previous post. The judge refused to allow the claimant’s representative a right of audience in a Small Claims Track case. This was a Small Claims Track case, however the judge then…
MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
I am grateful to Ritchie Young for sending me a copy of this judgment in which the District Judge refused to allow an unauthorised person a right of audience in a small claims track case. It is not technically part…
MAZUR MATTERS 58: LEARN HOW TO SUPERVISE STAFF PROPERLY – OR RISK GOING TO JAIL: IT IS WISE TO RECORD SUPERVISION ARRANGEMENTS FULLY
One key element of the Mazur decision, that needs repeating, is that it does not allow unauthorised persons to “conduct” litigation. It allows unauthorised people to assist and conduct the tasks involved in litigation so long as they are properly…
NEW RULES CAME INTO FORCE YESTERDAY: A QUICK REMINDER
New rules came into force yesterday. The key changes have been reviewed in a series of posts on this site. To refresh your memory a summary of the posts are below. Changes have also been made to the rules in…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY (ON A TUESDAY…) : THE RULES ABOUT SERVING NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS: SERVE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE – OR TAKE THE RISK
There are cases where those making applications make a tactical decision not to serve the application at once. They think, wrongly, that the rules only require three days notice to be given. This belief if wrong. As we shall see…
MAZUR MATTERS 57: THE INDEMNITY INSURER’S VIEW: “DOES IT CHANGE THAT MUCH REALLY?”: “I STRUGGLE TO THINK OF REAL LIFE SCENARIOS THAT WOULD HAVE FALLEN FOUL OF SHELDON J’S DISTINCTION BUT ARE NOW LAWFUL (AND VICE VERSA)”
I have written several times that when it came to providing practical guidance on how to deal with the Mazur judgment it was often insurers that were far more helpful than the regulators. It is worthwhile having a look at…
ANOTHER CASE ON FAILING TO PAY THE COURT FEE: AN APPEAL WAS STILL LODGED IN TIME EVEN THOUGH NO FEE WAS PAID AT ALL
Here we have a case that extends the principles in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey. The Court of Appeal held that a statutory appeal was lodged within time, even though it was sent by email to the court and no fee was…
SERVICE POINTS 32: MISSING OUT THE NAME OF THE ROAD ON THE CLAIM FORM DID NOT INVALIDATE SERVICE
The judge here considered an argument that a failure to include the name of the defendant’s street on the claim form meant that service was defective. This argument was rejected. The fact that the street was mentioned on the land…
MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: (THIS IS NOT “AS YOU WERE”): WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026
I have already written about the misunderstandings that have occurred in relation to the Mazur judgment. The judgment is far more nuanced than some commentators suggest and a detailed knowledge of what is required is essential for anyone involved in…
MAZUR MATTERS 56: WHY WE MUST BE WARY OF THE SRA DEFINITION: CAN AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON REALLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION” EVEN UNDER SUPERVISION?
The judgment, quite expressly, passes a lot of responsibility for the detail of supervision on to the regulators. In this respect it is important that the regulators get the law right (and lets be honest their track record to date…
MAZUR MATTERS 55: THINGS WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (2): WHAT DEGREE OF SUPERVISION IS REQUIRED: THIS “WILL ALWAYS DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES”
It is important to note that the Court of Appeal decision yesterday did not create a “free for all” for unauthorised persons to undertake the conduct of litigation. Far from it. A central part of the judgment was the need…
MAZUR MATTERS 54: THINGS WE STILL DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (1) WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? THE COURT DID NOT SUPPLY AN “EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION”
The judgment given yesterday still leaves us with many uncertainties and litigators still need to tread with some care. Here we look at one of the matters that the Court of Appeal was not able to give a definitive answer…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COURT STRIKES OUT PARTS OF DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT AS NON COMPLIANT WITH PD57AC (AND THE DEFENDANT IS A BARRISTER…)
This case adds to the growing number of cases where the courts have considered whether a witness statement breaches PD 57AC and the consequences for breach. The defendant’s initial statement contained numerous breaches of PD57. A revised statement was more…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 5: THE “NUANCED” BITS: IT IS ALL ABOUT DELEGATION OF TASKS AND SUPERVISION (AND HERE IT IS OVER TO THE REGULATORS…)
I have already written that the judgement is Mazur is far more nuanced than many commentators have suggested. It does not give a “free for all” for non-authorised persons to litigate. Rather it gives authorised lawyers the ability to delegate…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 4: THE CONCLUSIONS: IF AN UNATHORISED PERSON IS IN REALITY CONDUCTING THE LITIGATION “THEY WILL BE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE”
The judgment in Mazur today is far more nuanced than some observers have suggested. It is not an “as we were” situation. There is still scope for those working within solicitors’ practices to be breaking the law and thus committing…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 3: NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: BUT WE DO HAVE THE “MAGNIFICENT SEVEN”
We continue our look at the judgment today by looking at the court’s more detailed consideration of what was meant by the “conduct of litigation”. The court did not give a definition. However it did give seven key points as to…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 2: WHAT CAN AN “UNAUTHORISED” PERSON DO?
We continue with our breakdown of the Mazur decision today. Here the Court of Appeal considers what an “unauthorised” person can do. (The next post will look at the practical examples the judgment gives). “The judge was wrong to…
MAZUR COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE OVERTURNED: THE SUPERVISION OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
I will be writing about this judgment throughout the day. The first posts will contain a summary of the views from the court. Later posts will analyse the position as a whole. This post contains a consideration of the carrying…
MORE USE OF AI: MORE HALLUCINATED CASES: THERE IS “NO PROBLEM” IN USING AI: BUT CONSIDERABLE CARE HAS TO BE TAKEN
If these issues continue as they have been we may soon be seeing an “AI Tuesday” to add to the other themes we examine throughout the week. Here we look at another “hallucination” case which ended with the person involved…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 65: THE REASON WHY PLEADINGS ARE IMPORTANT IN ALL TYPES OF CASES: “IF THE DEFENDANT FEELS SHE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY PART OF HER CASE BY REASON OF INADEQUATE PLEADINGS … SHE MAY NEED TO TAKE THAT UP WITH HER SOLICITORS…”
I appreciate that today has been a “pleadings heavy” day on this site. However the reason for this is that pleadings are important across the board. Earlier today we looked at pleadings in a multi-million pound dispute between two banks. Here…
MASTERING PD57AC – GETTING WITNESS STATEMENTS RIGHT IN THE COMMERCIAL COURTS (AND THE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU DON’T): WEBINAR 30th APRIL 2026
Witness statements can make—or break—your case in the Commercial Courts. Since the introduction of Practice Direction 57AC in April 2021, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that compliance is not optional. Yet many practitioners continue to fall into the same costly…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 63: WHEN ARE AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS “CONSEQUENTIAL” – DOES A PARTY HAVE “GENERAL RIGHT” TO INTRODUCE NEW MATTERS?
Here we continue with our examination of attempts to amend pleadings. We are looking at the same case as the previous post but a different judgment from a different judge. Here the claimant amended its Particulars of Claim and the…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 62: REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL REPORT IN A DEFENCE MAY NOT BE HELPFUL: “A PLEADING NEEDS TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS AND COHERENT”
Today we are going to look in detail at attempts to amend a defence. There is much to learn about pleadings, pleading defences and applications to amend. We start off with an application made last year. However as we shall…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A MANDATORY OBLIGATION OFTEN IGNORED
It is surprisingly common to see witness statements that fail to comply with the basic – and mandatory – requirement that the maker of the statement gives the source of any matters of information or belief they are giving evidence…
HOW A FIRM OF SOLICITORS SHOULD NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN LITIGATION: A WORKING EXAMPLE: EVIDENCE THAT WAS “GENERALLY UNRRELIABLE” AND “LACKING IN CREDIBILITY”
Here we are looking at a judgment that contains some remarkable observations and findings about the conduct of a solicitor. The judge was concerned not only about the failure to comply with directions, the inadequate nature of the statement of…
PROVING THINGS 284: APPLICANT FOR INJUNCTION FAILS ON JUST ABOUT EVERY POINT: THE CASE WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND; NO EVIDENCE OF A RISK OF DISSIPATION; MATTERS THAT LEAVE THE JUDGE “BAFFLED” AND UNCOMFORTABLE
The applicant in this case sought an injunction. The application was (unusually) made on notice. The respondent did not have the opportunity to put in evidence. The applicant failed on just about every point. It was unclear what the applicant’s…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MAKING A MISTAKE AND THEN BIGGING A DEEPER HOLE FOR YOURSELF: MARCH 2018
Here we are looking at a set of circumstances that we have seen many time, both before and after this post from March 2018. A lawyer makes a mistake, panics and then makes horrendous decisions in an attempt to cover…
KEEPING TIME ESTIMATES UNDER REVIEW: JUDGE GIVES REASONS FOR ADJOURNING APPLICATION: AND (BY THE WAY) “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN”
It is rare that we see a detailed judgment on the reasons why an application has to be adjourned. Here the judge comments on the reasons for the adjournment but also observes that the initial time estimate for the application…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (3): TIME LIMITS FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROCUREMENT ACT MADE CLEAR…
Some of the changes being introduced on the 6th April 2026 are relatively niche. However given that they could impact CLB readers who deal with these issues on a regular or “one off” basis I do not like to miss…
IF YOU MISSED THE WEBINAR ON INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION IT IS NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
The webinar on informing the client about the costs of litigation is now available “on demand” and details can be found here. THE REASONS FOR THE WEBINAR Recent Legal Ombudsman decisions show that solicitors’ firms are being ordered…
COST BITES 368: THERE WERE NO “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE” WHICH MEANT THE SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED OUT OF TIME: THERE IS NOTHING THAT CALLS FOR AN EXPLANATION
We are returning to the previous case to look at the second half of the Cost Judge’s decision. Having determined that the bills were statute bills the judge then considered whether there were “special circumstances” which would entitle the claimant…
SERVICE POINTS 31: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPLY IN TIME TO LIFT A STAY: A RARE SUCCESS ON A CLAIM FORM ISSUE
Here we are looking at an unusual set of facts in relation to service of the claim form, not least because it led to the issues being considered under the Denton criteria and is a (relatively rare) example of a…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 61: CLAIM FOR LIBEL WAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED: “MUCH OF THIS ESSENTIAL DETAIL IS MISSING”
As we shall see there are very strict and precise requirements for pleading libel. There are numerous cases where the claimant has failed to get past the preliminary stages because of inadequate pleadings. We look at such a case here….
HALLUCINATIONS KEEP APPEARING IN THE REPORTS: TWO MORE EXAMPLES: COUNSEL AT FAULT IN BOTH…
We are looking at two more examples of “hallucinated” cases appearing in reported cases. In both cases it was counsel that was presenting the case. (In one case counsel was acting for himself). “The incident does, however, demonstrate vividly the…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A NOTICE DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT: CPR 32.19
Here we look at a case that illustrates a very basic principle of civil procedure and evidence. It is a case where the claimant was, in essence, disputing the authenticity of several documents. However a basic procedural step had not…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 60: FAILING TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE” LEADS TO TRIAL BEING RESTRICTED TO LIABILITY (AND THE CLAIMANT’S FACING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS)
Here we are looking at a failure to plead the claimant’s case as to damages fully. The claimant wanted to advance a claim for “loss of chance” in addition to seeking damages on the balance of probability. The judge rejected…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS OF DRAFTING PLEADINGS: WEBINAR 2nd APRIL 2026
The series on the “Current importance of pleadings” has now reached 59 posts. There are other posts in the series that are imminent. This webinar looks at issues in relation to drafting statements of case. BOOKING DETAILS Are available…
WHEN FUNDING AND CFA SCHEMES GO BADLY WRONG: A CASE THAT EXAMINES THE FALLOUT: £48 MILLION PAID OUT TO DATE … AND COUNTING
Here we have an important decision for litigators, litigation funders, legal insurers and clients. It is a challenge to summarise this case, but it is essential reading nevertheless. Here, as an initial view, is an overview of the funding scheme…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MORE ABOUT LITIGATORS AND WORKLOAD (IT’S STILL NUTS): MARCH 2016
Here we look at a post from March 2016. It raised some comments at the time and followed on from a previous post we have looked at (which in turn led to several comments). It asks the, fairly fundamental, question…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF HAS ITS OWN LINKEDIN PAGE (“ABOUT TIME TOO” – APPARENTLY)
Civil Litigation Brief now has its own LinkedIn page. It is another way of following the posts on this site. Posts will be posted as they are published and it is another way of being able to keep up to…
THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLICITORS’ ESTIMATES IN RELATION TO COSTS: SOME EXAMPLES WHERE PROBLEMS HAVE OCCURRED (WITH A FINAL PLUG FOR THE WEBINAR ON THE 19th MARCH)
The recent short series on this site about the Ombudsman and estimates of costs highlighted the issues that can occur when there are disputes over costs and the original figures given by the solicitor. However the Ombudsman is not the…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY II: A STATEMENT THAT WAS “BASED ON A COMBINATION OF SPECULATION AND DOUBLE, TRIPLE OR EVEN MORE REMOTE HEARSAY”
We have looked at many cases in which judges have been critical of the way in which witness statements are drafted. This case is one of the most clear and extreme examples. The defendant (a firm of solicitors) failed to…
EXPERT WATCH 41: THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO OVERTURN A DECISION WHERE THE “WRONG” TYPE OF JOINT EXPERT WAS INSTRUCTED
This is an unusual case where, after the event, a party to the litigation argued that the court had relied on the “wrong” type of expert evidence. An educational psychologist had been instructed as a joint expert whereas what was…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 7: HEADING OFF PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET: (WEBINAR THIS THURSDAY 19th MARCH 2026 – WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS)
This short series has aimed to highlight the ongoing difficulties that litigators, in particular, can have with giving compliant costs information to their clients. In looking at this topic it is clear that there are numerous cases where clients have…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 6: YOU SAID IT WOULD COST £2,500 – £3,000 – I’VE PAID YOU £16,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING ESTIMATES AS TO DISBURSEMENTS
This decision emphasises the fact that when giving costs estimates the solicitor should also do their best to estimate the costs of disbursements in addition to their own costs. Here the solicitor mentioned that there would be additional costs if…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE “BEAR TRAP” IN WAITING
The back to basics point today is based on a recent case which shows the importance of serving the particulars of claim within the four month period allowed for service of the claim form. The claimant served the particulars three…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED AFTER CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: “THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCK OUT”
Here we look at the “second half” of the decision considered in the previous post. Having rejected the claimant’s submissions that breaches of a peremptory order should be considered under CPR 3.10 the judge then went on to consider the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.