LITIGATION THAT WAS “TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION”: THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE CUT THEIR CASE TO SUIT THEIR CLOTH: (SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES TOO)
In White Winston Select Asset Funds LLC & Anor v Mahon & Anor [2019] EWHC 1381 (Ch) HHJ Simon Barker QC had some telling words about the manner in which the claimant had conducted litigation. What is remarkable about this…
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)
In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…
COSTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND LITIGATION FRIENDS: COURT HAS A DISCRETION TO ORDER COSTS AGAINST CHILD LITIGANTS
In the judgment today in Barker v Confiànce Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1401 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered whether costs could be ordered against child claimants and/or their litigation friend. He found that no special principles apply to prevent…
PROVING THINGS 153: “YOU DO NOT WIN A CASE ON INCONSISTENCIES”: WHEN THE APPLICANTS “PURSUED A CONFUSED AND POORLY EVIDENCED CASE FOR LITTLE PURPOSE”
Most cases are lost not on issues of law but on issues of evidence. In Stewart & Ors v Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber was particularly scathing of the quality of the applicants’ evidence. The judgment contains…
ADVICE FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND AROUND THE WORLD: “CROWD SOURCED” GUIDANCE: THANKS FOR ALL THE TWEETS
There have been a number of occasions when I have put contributions from people on Twitter on this blog. This is usually in response to specific questions and issues raised. People have been generous in their time and Advice. I…
DECISION OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR JUDICIAL TREATMENT: “TAKING UP THE CUDGELS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION”
There are few cases that are overturned on the grounds of unfair judicial treatment. However this was one of grounds the appeal was allowed today in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 “On numerous occasions, the Judge…
COURT REFORM: VIEW FROM THE DISTRICT JUDGES: “WE QUESTION WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN MEANINGFUL (AS OPPOSED TO TOKEN) CONSULTATION WITH ALL LEVELS OF THE JUDICIARY”
The Justice Committee is carrying out an inquiry into the ongoing court reforms. The written evidence it has received is available here. I just want to highlight the views from The Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges. This makes interesting…
LAWYERS, DEADLINES AND PROCRASTINATION: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? (“A DEADLINE… THAT IS ALL”)
Many of the cases that appear on this blog, particularly those dealing with sanctions and service, arise because things are left to the very last minute. We have looked before at lawyers and procrastination. I thought that perhaps this is…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…
WHAT DO LAWYERS DREAM ABOUT? ODD SHOES, PINK HAIR AND BEING LATE FOR COURT
This post started out of a perfectly amicable tweet from law lecturer extraordinaire Snigdha Nag, wishing everyone taking exams good luck. That led some practitioners to reply that they were still having nightmares about law exams. That then led to…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…
ELECTRONIC FILING IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION: “LONG OVERDUE MODERNISATION”
You can read the Lord Justice’s speech on the launch of Electronic Filing in the Queen’s Bench Division by following the link here. “It will enable parties to issue claims and applications with ease. Pleadings and other court documents will…
MISTAKES ON A TRAIN: THE DANGERS OF LAWYERS WORKING ON THE MOVE
This post is caused by a Twitter thread this evening. I was travelling on a train and a solicitor sat beside me (who I did not know). I knew she was a solicitor because she took out a laptop and…
MORE ON THE GREAT BUNDLE TAKEAWAY DEBACLE: A “DIFFICULT” QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR FAMILY LAWYERS
There has been a large amount of comments on the previous posts in relation to taking away of bundles after trial. For family lawyers there is an even greater problem. The “joint notice” from HMCTS endorsed by the Bar Council…
A TINY BIT MORE ON BUNDLES AND THE TAKEAWAY CONDUNDRUM
The earlier post set out HMCTS guidance in relation to the taking away of documents after a hearing. At the same time as HMCTS prepared the Joint Notice the Bar Council issued an explanatory note “Many of you will be…
WITNESS BUNDLES: TAKE THEM AWAY AT THE END OF THE TRIAL – OR ELSE
This has been a week dominated by bundles. To end the week the Bar Council has sent out a joint notice from HMCTS on removal of court bundles. This provides a major incentive to ensure that bundles are, in fact,…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE TOMORROW
Why anyone chose a Saturday as the implementation date for new rules may be a mystery. Nevertheless new rules are in force from tomorrow. Two crucial items: court bundles and writing directly to the court have already been looked at. …
THE RULES THEY ARE A CHANGING: NEW RULES ON BUNDLES FROM THE 6th APRIL 2019
New rules are coming into force on the 6th April. The CPR update can be found here. The most important from the point of view of anyone preparing for a hearing or trial on or after the 6th April is…
CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)
I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual. This part…