BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST…
Here we are looking at a basic requirement that is often overlooked. When a party is applying for permission to rely on expert evidence there is a mandatory obligation to provide the court with an estimate of costs. THE…
COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
It is useful to remember why the strictures in PSD57AC were introduced. It followed the report of the Witness Evidence Working Group which was produced at the end of 2019. That report highlighted some major issues in relation to the…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
It is surprising how many allegations of negligence are made against lawyers because of a failure to consider and obtain damages for loss of earnings. In addition there are a growing number of cases where claimants have come to grief…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A “NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE” (APRIL 2018)
If there is a judgment that still resonates in practical terms today it is the one we are considering here. It asks the answer how should schedules be drafted? It then gives the answers. This was in a case where…
WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – BUT… : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON…
Here we have a case where both parties failed to comply with a direction to file witness statements by a certain date. The court granted relief from sanctions, and it is easy to see why. However it is case that…
COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 2: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PD57AC: “HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS”
Over the next week there will be a short series dealing with errors and omissions relating to witness statements and PD57AC. What is surprising is how much material there is. These rules are five years old this month, yet we…
SERVICE POINTS 36 : “THIS IS AN AREA OF UNDOUBTED STRICTNESS”: ERRORS IN SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM WERE FATAL TO THE CLAIM
Regular readers of this site will not need reminding of the strictness of the rules relating to service of the claim form. Here we have another example. The claimant failed to serve the sealed claim form within the period allowed…
COST BITES 377: THE COURT WOULD NOT STAY A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT PENDING THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL AND/OR APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO SET OFF THEIR OWN COSTS (WHY WHAT IS TAKEN OUT OF DRAFT ORDER CAN BE AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT IS LEFT IN…)
Here we have an unusual issue, caused by the defendant agreeing to an unusual order (more accurately the removal of a proposed term of an order). The defendant was liable to pay the claimant’s costs of a hearing which were…
PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 12: WHAT IS A CLAIMANT TO DO ABOUT CRU IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT INSURED AND NOT RESPONDING?
This case considers the issues that arise when a defendant has failed to comply with its statutory obligation to notify the Compensation Recovery Unit of a claim. What duties does the claimant have in these circumstances. The blunt answer is…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP AGAIN (GUESS THE REASON…): YOUR STATEMENTS DID COMPLY WITH PD57AC SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO IGNORE THE ERRANT PARTS
Here we have (yet another) case about a failure to comply with PD57AC. The response of the defendants here was simply to state that they would not cross-examine the claimants’ witnesses on material that was irrelevant or inadmissible. “I was…
SERVICE POINTS 35: HOT OFF THE PRESS: THE HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INITIAL FINDING THAT AN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RE-SEALED PRIOR TO SERVICE
The cases on service of the claim form continue to flow. Here the defendant appealed a decision that it was not necessary for a claimant to serve a sealed copy of an amended claim form. As we shall see the…
DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
The previous post mentioned a webinar this Friday on deducting costs from the client’s damages. Right on cue this judgment occurred on that very topic. It makes some very important observations. It has created more work in preparing the webinar,…
DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE LAW AND PRACTICE: WEBINAR 24th APRIL 2026
Recent cases have shown that the issues relating to to deducting costs from the client’s damages remain controversial and highly contested. This webinar examines the regulatory framework and case law governing the deduction of legal costs from a client’s damages…
EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
The previous post on costs and mediation led to me to look at the initial judgment on liability. This is because the court considered an argument that the situation with the claimant’s expert was so poor as to warrant indemnity…
COSTS BITES 377: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO MEDIATE LEAD TO IT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS?
Here we have a case where a claimant who lost a case at trial (and turned down an offer of £200,000) argued that there should be no order for costs. That argument did not take it very far… “The Defendant’s…
AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
Here we have a case where an important time limit was, on the face of it missed, because the court itself “thwarted” genuine attempts to lodge an appeal in time. It is an object lesson the care that needs to…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
Here we look at at post from twelve years ago concerning judicial protestations about opinion evidence in witness statements. Despite all the warnings have occurred since, and the advent of PD57AC, this remains a regular (and improper) occurrence. We looked…
PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
Assessing claims for loss of earnings for children is always difficult. The importance of this has become, if anything, more acute given the Supreme Court decision in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals…
“OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS
We have seen many cases where the courts have been critical of a party’s failure to comply with the duties of full and frank disclosure when obtaining an order without notice. However here we have a case where the judge…
THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS: WEBINAR 17th APRIL 2026
Last week we saw a case where, on a summary assessment, costs were reduced from £2.6 million to £750,000 on a summary assessment. Clearly not all assessments are going to involve these amounts, however the case highlights that these can…
MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
The Revised Law Society Guidance on Mazur was looked at in a previous post. Whilst we wait for the SRA Guidance it may be useful to look at the key differences in the Law Society Guidance before and after the…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 66: WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIES TO ADVANCE ALLEGATIONS NOT STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE THOSE MATTERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE
This case illustrates the need for allegations to be pleaded, particularly in relation to assertions of fraud. It took 38 days of court time and concerned a loss of US $715 million. Still the judge was concerned that allegations were…
“GUIDE, MENTOR AND FRIEND”: REVIEW OF THE APIL GUIDE TO CATASTROPHIC INJURY CLAIMS 4th EDITION: STUART McKECHNIE KC (AND A FORMIDABLE TEAM): THE “LITTLE GEM” THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
The fundamental question for a reviewer of a legal text is – is this book worthwhile? Here there is only one answer. A book of considerable importance, assistance and utility is a “must buy”. HOW DO I SUMMARISE THIS? Sir…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC WAS FIVE YEARS OLD THIS MONTH – STILL GUIDANCE IS NEEDED
The Business and Property Courts – The Commercial Court Report 2024-2025 makes interesting reading. It notes that PD57AC came into force some five years ago. It still shows the need to emphasise that the Practice Direction needs to be complied…
A REMINDER – DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
We are just looking at a few lines from a judgment we looked at earlier this morning. They contain a reminder that documents in an agreed bundle are admissible as evidence at the hearing. However this does not mean that…
MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
One remarkable aspect of the Mazur decision is that in a very real sense it is the losers of the case who get to decide what goes on going forward. The Court of Appeal rejected the submissions of the Law Society…
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
This is an interesting judgement on two levels. Firstly the judge did not accept the defendant’s contention that there had been an agreement to extend time for service of Points of Dispute to a bill of costs. Secondly, applying the…
MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
One underlying irony about the Mazur debacle is that most of the problems arise because of a mistake as to costs. The Circuit Judge ordered Ms. Mazur and Mr Stuart £10,653 when, in fact, the costs should only have been £636.00. …
COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
This judgment highlights the need for a solicitor to keep the client fully informed of the costs incurred. The judge observed that the SRA Code of Conduct imposed a positive duty on a solicitor to give the client the best…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
There have been a large number of posts recently relating to solicitor and own costs assessments. Many of these cases have related to the issue of whether bills delivered were “statute” bills “interim statute bills” or simply interim bills. The…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
Drafting a Schedule of Damages is not simply a mathematical calculation. It requires legal knowledge, careful analysis, attention to evidence, and practical judgement. Courts frequently criticise poorly prepared schedules, particularly where figures are unsupported, exaggerated, or inconsistent with the evidence….
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.