ISSUING PROCEEDINGS A SECOND TIME: NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HALL –v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE EXAMINED
Can a claimant issue again if an action is struck because of a failure to comply with the rules and? This is likely to become a question of considerable interest given the number of cases that are failing because of…
SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 3: IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH A RULE OR PRACTICE DIRECTION THEN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT IS BREACHED
The Mitchell case makes it clear that applications for relief from sanctions made after breach will be granted sparingly. Here we consider the merits of making an application in advance of the date of breach. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL…
WEBINAR ON "SURVIVING MITCHELL":29th JANUARY 2014
I am broadcasting a Webinar for CLT on “Surviving Mitchell” on the 29th January 2014 at 13.00. The link for subscribing can be found at http://www.clt.co.uk/webinar.aspx?crseidcode=1695882 “This webinar which is presented by Gordon Exall, will explain exactly what went wrong for…
SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 2: ASSUME EVERY ORDER OF THE COURT IS A PEREMPTORY ORDER.
Some of the cases on sanctions reported this week have been highly disturbing; with cases being struck out on the morning of the trial because the bundles were not lodged three days earlier. As a result the only safe assumption…
CAN A STRUCK OUT CLAIMANT ISSUE AGAIN? EXERCISE OF THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION AFTER A FIRST ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED.
One of the “open” questions following the Mitchell decision is whether a claimant refused relief from sanctions can issue again. That is an open question (which will be considered at another time). Here we look at the court’s approach to…
SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE : 1 KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN MITCHELL AND HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED
The decision in Mitchell is already having a major impact on day to day litigation. This is the first of a series of posts which looks at the Mitchell decision and deals with the practical steps that practitioner’s must take…
THE AFTERMATH FROM MITCHELL: THIS IS GETTING REALLY, REALLY, SERIOUS
I have been in discussions today with one barrister who estimates that, in his own practice alone, he has already represented claimants where a total of £1 million pounds of damages have been lost as a result of a decision…
THE MITCHELL CRITERIA FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A DETAILED EXAMINATION
There has been much comment about the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell on litigation and litigators. Here we look, in considerable detail, at the guidance given in relation to relief from sanctions and associated case law….
MITCHELL: THE COMMENTARY CONTINUES
The commentary on the fallout of the Mitchell decision continues apace. One of the most interesting comments, however, comes from Sir Henry Brooke, former Lord Justice who tweets at @HenryBrooke1. Here we look at those observations and other links to…
MITCHELL: 20 KEY POINTS OF JUDGMENT
The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Mitchell -v- News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 today. The case has been much covered. The Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. The key points of general importance are: 1….
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 6: COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLIENT
Procter -v- Raleys Previous posts in this series have concentrated upon limitation issues. This post looks at the recent decision of Judge Gosnell in Procter –v- Raleys (Leeds County Court 6/11/2013). In particular what it demonstrates about the need to…
WITNESS STATEMENTS & COMPLYING WITH THE RULES 2: THE GROUNDS FOR THE WITNESSES’ KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF
The previous post at http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/the-importance-of-drafting-witness-statements-that-comply-with-the-rules/ discussed a case where the problems about the witnesses giving information as to source of belief and hearsay evidence. The problems were avoi… Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read…
THE DANGERS OF GETTING THE COURT FEES WRONG: IF THE FEES ARE NOT RIGHT – YOU HAVEN'T ISSUED
If proceedings are being issued at the last moment then it is imperative that the correct fee is lodged at court. A failure to send the correct fee will mean that proceedings are not properly issued. This post looks at…
TEN MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR SHOULD KNOW.
There are a surprising number of “myths” that prevail in personal injury litigation. In particular in relation to limitation. Here, as part of the “avoiding negligence” series we look at 10 of these myths. Myth 1: In a breach of…
ACCIDENTS ABROAD AND THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS ACT: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 5
It is easy to assume that every jurisdiction has a limitation period of three years. However when an accident happens abroad the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 provides that the relevant limitation period is the period that prevails in…
TROUBLE AT SEA: LIMITATION PERIODS AND WATER TRAVEL: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE 4
We continue the examination of limitation periods that are not necessarily three years. Accidents that happen at sea, or on water generally, can be subject to different limitation periods and, normally, a two year limitation period applies. TWO YEAR PERIODS…
DO YOU NEED LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE ON BEHALF OF AN ESTATE?
A recent e-mail enquiry has led to my considering the issue of the right to issue proceedings on behalf of the estate of someone who died intestate. The solicitor wanted to bring an action for personal injury on behalf of…
AVIATION AND LIMITATION: 10 QUESTIONS EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR SHOULD ASK
A tweet on the 8th October 2013 read: “PI Claim struck out because Montreal Convention pleaded instead of Warsaw Convention.” (The case in question is reported in detail by Jasmine Murphy on the Hardwicke Chambers website.) This reiterates the points…
THE DANGERS OF WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: THE WHOLE TRUTH IS THE ONLY OPTION
Since the advent of CPR 3.3 and CPR 23.8 and 9 there appears to have been a growth in the number of applications made without notice. Two recent cases highlight the very onerous duty on a party making such an…
APPLYING TO SET ASIDE WITHOUT NOTICE ORDERS: BE QUICK: BE VERY QUICK
This post looks at the power the courts have to make costs orders when making an order of its own motion or without notice to one party. A party attempting to challenge or vary such an order must act promptly….
LITIGATION AFTER JACKSON: A 10 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE
There has been a tremendous change in policy in relation to case management after 1st April 2013. This has already led to major difficulties for some litigators. This post is the first (of what may be many) survival guides for…
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CPR: CAN BITE DEFENDANTS TOO!
This post looks at the decision in Dass –v- Dass where the defendant was refused permission to rely upon medical experts because they had not been served in accordance with court directions. Many of the recent cases in relation to…
LITIGATORS:WANT TO WORK FOR NOTHING? THEN DON'T FILE YOUR COSTS BUDGET ON TIME
This post deals with the extremely draconian penalty imposed on a litigant who fails to file a costs budget on time. THE RULES CPR 3.13 and 14 deals with the duty to exchange costs budgeting. Filing and exchanging…
AVIATION AND THE REALLY VICIOUS LIMITATION PERIOD : AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE 3
AVIATION AND LIMITATION The purpose of this post is to make you feel really uncomfortable when you are involved with a case that involves aviation, in any way shape or form. Including when your client is injured in an airport….
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A CASE IN WHICH RELIEF WAS GRANTED. WYCHE -v- CAREFORCE GROUP LTD
Every case in relation to relief from sanctions is being examined carefully after 1st April. The case of IAN ALAN WYCHE v CAREFORCE GROUP PLC (2013)QBD (Comm) 25/07/2013 is going to be of interest. The case is not yet fully reported…
SERVING WITNESS STATEMENTS LATE: AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PRACTICE
The recent decision in Fons HF –v- Corporal Ltd & Pillar Securitisation [2013] EWHC 1278 (Ch) provides an object lesson on the difficulties that can arise when both parties fail to file witness statements in accordance with directions. The facts…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE 2 : NOT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LIMITATION PERIOD IS THREE YEARS.
“THOSE LIMITATION PERIODS THAT CAN BITE YOU IN THE BOTTOM” It can come to a shock to some litigators that not every action has a three year limitation period. Some have a two year period and some less than that. …
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE 1 : THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: HOW DOES ANYONE MISS IT?
How does anyone miss a three year limitation period? The basic answer is usually some kind of maladministration. Often a failure of the diary system. Someone has inserted the wrong month, occasionally the wrong year. Sometimes there is no diary…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE : A LAWYER'S GUIDE
I am writing a series of posts on the topic of “how not to get sued”. This is mainly aimed at personal injury practitioners, however many of the posts relate to procedure and will be of more general interest. There…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: FURTHER TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY
The post on “Service Faults” http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/service-faults-and-the-match-is-over/ pointed out one of the traps for the unwary in relation to service of the claim form. However the decision in Bethell Construction –v- Deloitte & Touche [2010] EWHC (Judge Ho… Enjoying this post? Become…
THANKS FOR THE £500,000. NOW WHERE’S THE EXTRA £50,000 YOU OWE ME? KNOWING THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES FOR THE CLAIMANT IN THE NEW PART 36
The new provisions when a claimant beats their own Part 36 provide challenges (including potential negligence claims) for the claimant lawyer. A claimant who beats their own Part 36 offer at trial now obtains considerable benefit. CPR 36.13(3) states that…
You must be logged in to post a comment.