DRAFTING EFFECTIVE ATTENDANCE NOTES IN LITIGATION: COST EFFECTIVE DELEGATION FOR LITIGATORS: SOME FUNDAMENTAL POINTS ADDRESSED IN TWO WEBINARS
Last week I had the pleasure of giving a lecture, alongside many of my colleagues in the costs team in chambers. There were about 100 lawyers present, many with considerable experience. I was able to take a straw poll of…
BRINGING A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION WAS A FLIGHT OF FANCY: ACTION ON BEHALF OF NUMEROUS PASSENGERS STRUCK OUT
In Smyth v British Airways Plc & Anor [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB) Master Davison struck out an action which claimed to be a “representative action” on behalf of thousands (if not millions) of airline passengers. The judge was sceptical about…
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS FOR THOSE NOT PROFICIENT IN ENGLISH – “DISAPPOINTINGLY A NOT INFREQUENT OCCURRENCE”
In SZ Solicitors -v- Bharj [2024] 8WLUK 65 HHJ Monty KC dealt with the problems that arose when a party had not complied with the rules in relation to providing a witness statement for a witness who is not proficient…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ISSUES: CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS THE EXTENSIONS OF TIME
The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Graham v Fidelidade – Companhia De Seguros SA [2024] EWHC 2010 (KB) contains some salutary lessons for litigators. In particular the importance of complying the the rules for applying for extensions of time…
CAN A COURT STRIKE OUT A CASE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CLAIMANT HAS NO REAL INTENTION OF PROCEEDING TO TRIAL? IT CAN – BUT NOT IN THIS CASE
In Lloyd v Hayward & Anor [2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch) HHJ Keyser KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the question of whether the delay in the progress of an action should lead to it being struck…
HARASSMENT PROCEEDINGS: PART 7 OR PART 8 ? FACTUAL DISPUTES MILITATE TRANSFER TO PART 7
We have seen several cases on this blog where the courts have considered the issues caused by the rules requiring that claims for harassment must be issued under Part 8 (however note that there is an important exception, considered in Pattinson…
OMNIBUS CLAIM FORMS: COURT MANAGEMENT OF CASES AND “DISAGGREGATION”
A problem with “omnibus” claim forms and subsequent case management was considered in detail in the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham and Master Davison in Adams & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 1966 (KB). The judgment considered the…
HARASSMENT PROCEEDINGS: PART 7 AND NOT PART 8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED
There are often procedural difficulties when a claimant bringing a claim for harassment has to use the Part 8 procedure (as this is prescribed by CPR 65.28(1)(a)). However as the judgment of Aidan Eardley KC in Pattinson v Winsor [2024]…
“WHAT I CANNOT DO IS HEAR AN APPEAL AGAINST A RECITAL”: WORDING OF ORDER MEANS SLIP RULE HAS TO BE APPLIED
It appears to be a well known fact that family lawyers love recitals. (Not the musical kind – but as the preamble to any and all court orders). This issue caused problems in MA v Roux [2024] EWHC 1917 (Fam)…
THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024
I was a more than a little shocked to read the judgment in Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 it is a case that shows that lawyers are still making…
DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND TRIAL: APPLICATION FOR REMOTE HEARING NOT ALLOWED: JUDGMENT ENTERED: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL UNSUCESSFUL
In Sobowale v Lendinvest Capital SARL [2024] EWHC 1829 (Ch) Nicola Rushton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) dismissed a defendant’s appeal against judgment being entered against him when he failed to attend a trial. “There was no…
COST (MEGA) BITES 167: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (IV): “BUT YOURS IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MINE” IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT: COSTS BUDGETS COULD NOT BE COMPARED
We are continuing to look at the judgment in relation to the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). In this post we are considering the argument that since claimants’ budget was very similar to the defendants’…
APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO RELY ON OWN EXPERT WHEN HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: THE “STAGGERED APPROACH” IS IMPORTANT
In Seneschall v Trisant Foods Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson overturned a decision whereby a party was refused permission to rely on their own expert report. The judgment is important because it emphasises the…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT BREACH THE PRACTICE DIRECTION: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH? HIGH COURT DECISION
In Vainker & Anor v Marbank Construction Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2785 (TCC) Mrs Justice Jefford considered the appropriate approach where a party objected to the contents of witness statements that did not comply with Practice Direction 57AC. She…
IS A PARTY ENTITLED TO SEE THEIR OPPONENT’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN EXPERT LEADING UP TO THE JOINT MEETING? AN ISSUE THAT IS IMPORTANT – BUT UNDECIDED
In Frasers Group plc v Saxo Bank AS & Anor [2024] EWHC 188 (Comm) HHJ Pelling KC considered issues relating to whether a party’s correspondence with their expert leading up to the joint meeting of experts should be disclosed. The…
MANCHESTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN NORFOLK: THE CASE GOES SOUTH…
In Bartosik, R (On the Application Of) v Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Norfolk [2024] EWHC 932 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham held that the Administrative Court in Manchester is not the appropriate venue for a dispute over…
THE DANGERS OF RUNNING UP TO DEADLINES AND LEAVING MATTERS LATE FOR COMPLIANCE: DEFENDANT HAD FAILED TO FILE WITH COURT ORDERS: REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS UPHELD ON APPEAL
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Jaiyesimi v Kukoyi [2024] EWHC 164 (KB) has many important lessons for litigators. Firstly the need for the fee to be paid in order that an application is properly made. Secondly the dangers…
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 30th APRIL 2024
This blog often looks at cases where litigation has gone wrong, be it limitation, service or someone falling foul of the rules or court orders. One of the saddest aspects of many of these cases is that if prompt and…
TRYING TO SQUEEZE A PART 7 CASE INTO A PART 8 APPLICATION: DISPUTES OF FACT MAKE PART 8 UNSUITABLE
In ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 878 (TCC) Neil Moody KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the question of whether a case was suitable for Part 8 determination. He decided that there were…
TOO MANY PARTIES CAN INCUR THE COURT’S WRATH: THE DIFFICULTIES IN PLEADING A CASE WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS
In Niprose Investments Ltd & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Ltd (Professional negligence) [2024] EWHC 801 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered some of the issues where 35 claimants attempted to plead their claim on one…