MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
A reminder that member subscribers have access to discounts on webinars being presented throughout the year. The details of the webinars, the discounts and how to find the discount codes are below. The first webinar sets out the practical consequences…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 54: ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULARS WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT SOME WORDS NEED TO BE CHANGED: CHOOSE YOUR WORDS WITH CARE…
We are returning to look at the case where the Master refused to strike out pleadings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process. However it was also made clear that the use of certain words in the…
EXPERT WATCH 34: THE COURT REFUSES TO REPLACE A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BUT ALLOWS SOME OF THE PARTIES TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT
When it is appropriate for a court to replace a jointly instructed expert? That issue was considered in this case. The judge rejected the allegations made about the jointly instructed expert, however given that expert evidence was central to the…
WHEN PERMISSION IS (AND IS NOT) REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A CLAIM BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MINORS: IT STILL HAS SERIOUS COSTS CONSEQUENCES THOUGH
Here we are looking at an interesting issue relating to discontinuance. In some circumstances a claim brought by a minor or protected party cannot be discontinued without the court’s permission; in other circumstances no permission is required. The distinction is…
PROVING THINGS 278: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE THEIR CASE WHILST THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE FRAUD: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES LEAD TO EVIDENCE NOT BEING ACCEPTED
Here we look at a judgment where the claimant failed to establish his case. The defendant also failed to prove that the claimant was involved in a “staged crash”. It shows how cumulative inconsistencies in a party’s evidence can lead…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS OF LIMITATION AND MAKING SECTION 33 APPLICATIONS: WEBINAR 20th FEBRUARY 2026 (MAKE SURE YOU’RE ON TIME…)
We have seen a few interesting cases about limitation in the past 12 months. Misunderstanding, and missing, limitation periods remains a frequent issue in modern litigation. This webinar deals with common issues and problems that arise with limitation in practice….
COST BITES 347: CLAIMANTS FAILURE TO “CUT THEIR CLOTH” MEANT COSTS OF BUDGETING PROCESS WERE REDUCED BY 20%
We have seen several cases where an “overambitious” costs budget has led to a reduction or disallowance in the costs of budgeting. We have another example here. The claimants were effectively given a second chance to produce budgets having had…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (2): THE COURT CAN ORDER A PARTY TO REQUEST ANY PERSON TO PRODUCE DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION
We are continuing with our look at the The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 which come into force on the 6th April 2026. Here we look at a totally new provision which gives the court power to order a party to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DRAFTING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: “IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT F SAYS AND WHAT AN ALGORITHM TELLS F TO SAY”
There is much material about witness evidence and witness statements on this site. In recent years we have also been discussing the use (and misuse) of artificial intelligence. We can be fairly sure that there will be much more about…
DEFENDANTS GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE SERVED LATE: EVEN THOUGH THIS LED TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL
A defendant that wishes to rely on surveillance evidence must choose its timing with extreme care. If the evidence is disclosed too early then the claimant could be “tipped off”; too late and this could be categorised as an “ambush”. …
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION(1): A PRIMER FOR “WHEN THE SKY IS FALLING”
Very little (if any) of the legal curriculum is devoted to what to do when things go wrong. Not enough (in my view) is devoted to preventing things go wrong. However here we concentrate on what do when something goes…
COST BITES 345: RECEIVING PARTY’S FAILURE TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT A NULLITY: CLEVER AND COMPLEX ARGUMENTS DID NOT PREVAIL
What are the consequences if a party lodging the documents for a provisional assessment of costs fails to file all the relevant documents and the assessment goes ahead without the judge seeing all the points of dispute? . This is…
WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS A SOLICITOR’S FIRM AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CLAIM “HINDERED BY A SERIES OF PROCEDURAL BREACHES”: NOT A GREAT START TO THE CASE
It is a poor start to a solicitor’s application for judicial review of the Legal Ombudsman when the firm itself has failed to comply with rules and directions. We have such a case here. The claimant firm applied for judicial…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026
As regular readers of this site know procedural mistakes derail more civil claims than weak evidence or bad law. Missed deadlines, defective pleadings, non-compliance with court directions and costs failures can all result in serious sanctions — or the claim…
THE PARTIES SHOULD DRAFT ORDERS IN THE TERMS STATED BY THE JUDGE: THE DRAFTING SHOULD NOT BE LITIGIOUS BUT TRANSACTIONAL
We are looking at two interesting aspects of a decision here. Firstly the judge’s observations on attempts by the claimants to “re-draw” the order made by the judge at the hearing. Secondly the finding that there were no good reasons…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY ii: WHY A JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS: SOME REPLIES WERE “ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS VERBIAGE DESIGNED TO FOB OFF QUESTIONS” HE “PREFERRED NOT TO ANSWER”
Knowing the factors that lead to the evidence of a witness not being accepted is an important part of the litigator’s “skill set”. Here we look at a case where the evidence of a witness was roundly rejected. “I…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE “THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED”
As you may guess from the title we are looking at witness evidence more than once today. Firstly we are going to look at an argument from the defendants that a claimant’s failure to call witnesses to give evidence meant…
MAKING THREATS TO REPORT LAWYERS TO THEIR REGULATORY BODIES IS CAPABLE OF AMOUNTING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT: MAKE THREATS AT YOUR OWN PERIL…
We are looking at a case where a respondent to committal proceedings threatened to make regulatory and other complaints about the conduct of the claimant solicitors. The judge held that such threats made in these circumstances are capable of amounting…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 52 : IF THE DEFENDANTS WERE PLEADING THAT INVIDIVIDUALS WERE INVOLVED IN POSITIVE DECEPTION THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEADED
Here we have a case where the judge found that the defendants’ case was pleaded in such a way that it did not allow them to make specific allegations of deception about particular individuals. If the defendants had a case…
EXPERT WATCH 33: WHEN AN AN EXPERT RELIES ON THE FINDINGS OF A PREVIOUS EXPERT: THIS CAN LEAD TO DIFFICULTIES…
I am grateful to Jim Shepphard solicitor for sending me a copy of this report part of which relates to to the assessment of expert evidence. The claimant’s expert had a problem because their report was based, in part, on…
A FURTHER EXAMPLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GENERATING PHANTOM REFERENCES AND FALSE QUOTATIONS
We see the another example of the dangers of the use of Artificial Intelligence in this case. Two authorities relied upon by a respondent did not contain the words attributed to them, none of them supported the propositions that had…
THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH WAS NOT SIGNED BY AN AUTHORISED PERSON: IT REQUIRES “FACTS” NOT INFORMATION: A SOLICITOR EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM
Here we have an example of a Statement of Truth that was non-compliant it contained the wrong wording and was signed by the wrong person in the wrong way. It shows the need to ensure that the rules in relation…
MAZUR MATTERS 48: THE INTERIM REPORT: REGULATOR’S GUIDANCE ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION WAS “NOT ALWAYS ARTICULATED WITH SUFFICIENT PRECISION”
The snappily titled “Interim Report: Regulatory review of advice and guidance provided to the profession on the conduct of litigation by approved regulators and regulatory bodies” from the Legal Services Board is five pages long (including one page spent on…
PROVING THINGS 277: FARMER’S WIDOW HAD SUFFERED A LOSS OF £55,000 A YEAR EVEN THOUGH THE FARM WAS NOT MAKING A PROFIT: AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
Here we have an interesting example of the application of one of the important principles of Fatal Accident Act damages. When the deceased person was running a business, the business may continue to operate after the death. However the dependants…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: HOW DOES THE COURT APPROACH EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OVER FOUR YEARS BEFORE AND TOOK PLACE WITHIN TWO MINUTES?
This series enables us to look at witness evidence in many different contexts. Here we look at evidence relating to an arrest and events that took place within two minutes. The judge was well aware of the issues that could…
EXPERT WATCH 32: A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW AS TO THE INDEPENDENCE (OR OTHERWISE) OF EXPERT WITNESSES
We are looking again at a case looked at yesterday. This is because the judgment contained a useful summary of many leading cases relating to the question of expert bias, or apparent bias. “It is always desirable that an expert…
EXPERT WATCH 31: A PARTY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO RELY ON THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WAS CONFLICTED: THE EXPERT CANNOT “MARK THEIR OWN HOMEWORK”
This is an interesting example of a judge refusing a party permission to rely on an expert witness because they were conflicted. They had been involved in the issues previously and could not give independent or disinterested advice. “Ms…
IT IS NOT THE JUDGE’S JOB TO ADD A PENAL NOTICE TO THE ORDER: THE APPLICANT SHOULD ASK: PENAL NOTICES CONSIDERED
There are a remarkable number of cases about penal notices. Questions such as “are they part of the court order?”; “are the essential for committal proceedings to be brought?” “when should they be added and who should add them” arise…
PROVING THINGS 276: APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS TRIAL JUDGE’S “INFERENCES” OF LOSS: DAMAGES AWARD OF £347,285 REPLACED WITH £NIL
This is a classic “Proving Things” case, the only surprise being that it reached the appeal stage. On appeal the the judge overturned the trial judge’s findings in favour of the defendant’s counterclaim and reduced a damages award of £347,285…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026: REMEMBER WE LOOK AT THESE PROBLEMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU DON’T HAVE THEM
The next webinar in the “Avoiding the Pitfalls” series is a 90 minute long webinar on the 6th February 2026. The webinar examines the most common procedural problems and practical difficulties that arise in civil litigation. It explores where and…
BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH “COURT SEALS”: “CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC…”
We have seen a few occasions where someone has produced an “official” court document which turned out to be no such thing. We see another example here, a “warrant” that, on the face of it had a red circular seal…
SHOULD A LOSING PARTY FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER? A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A HIGH HURDLE WITH A “FORMIDABLE BURDEN”
A litigant who fails to beat a Part 36 offer can normally expect to face the consequences set out in the rules. There is an exception if that litigant can satisfy the court that it is “unjust” for those consequences…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL: IF YOU DENY – YOU HAVE TO SAY WHY…
Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything. Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”. Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. It is important that practitioners know the…
THE COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A PEREMPTORY ORDER IN A SOLICITOR – CLIENT ACTION: LOTS TO LEARN HERE IN TERMS OF BOTH COSTS AND PROCEDURE
Here we are looking at a case that bristles with issues both in relation to solicitor and own client costs, but also in relation to civil procedure and compliance with court orders. It serves as a reminder that a client…
WHEN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS REALLY LEGAL ARGUMENT: THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE (NOR IS IT A NEW PROBLEM…)
I know that Wednesday is the day when we usually focus on witness evidence. However here we look at a case where it was conceded that a statement was, in reality, “more akin to a skeleton argument”. This is wrong….
THROWBACK FRIDAY: WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT (FROM JANUARY 2018)
Today we go back to a post from January 2018 on a point that remains just as relevant today. There is a mandatory requirement that a witness give the source of their information and belief. A surprising number of witness…
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SPECIFIC ISSUES: WHEN SHOULD A “COMPELLING REASON” PREVENT JUDGMENT BEING GIVEN? (NOT HERE…)
One ground for resisting an application for summary judgment is that there is a “compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial”. It is unusual for the issue of a “compelling reason” to be considered,…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A ROBUST OVERTURNING OF THE APPROACH TO THE WITNESS EVIDENCE AT FIRST INSTANCE: “GENERALISED FINDINGS ON CREDIBILITY ARE NOT A USEFUL TOOL FOR RESOLVING SPECIFIC ISSUES OF FACT”
It is unusual to see an appellate court make robust criticisms of the fact finding process at first instance. We have such a judgment here by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT made it clear that generalised findings as to…
COST BITES 331: SOLICITOR FAILS TO SHOW THEY WERE OWED £573,529 IN COSTS: NEITHER A LIEN OR THE LEGAL AID CHARGE NECESSARILY GIVES RISE TO A DEBT FROM THE CLIENT
This is an unusual case where a third party challenged a solicitor’s right to be a creditor in an insolvency arrangement. The third party argued that the sums claimed by the solicitors were not in fact recoverable from the respondent. …
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: DO NOT MENTION A PART 36 OFFER TO THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE THE TRIAL(OR DURING IT FOR THAT MATTER…)
The first time I wrote on this topic many practitioners expressed surprise that I had written something so very “basic”. Some readers were incredulous. However, as we see below, others shared their experiences. This rule is not known, or not…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER 3: SO WHY DID THE CLAIMANT LOSE? PLUS – THE STING IN THE TAIL FOR DEFENDANTS…
Earlier posts have shown that the claimant was successful on two of the key issues in relation to the appeal. However litigation can be cruel. A litigant can win on many issues but still lose the case. So it is…
COST BITES 328: A CAREFULLY NUANCED DECISION ABOUT LIABILITY FOR COSTS, INTERIM PAYMENTS FOR COSTS, INCLUDING COSTS OUTSIDE THE BUDGET
The question of “who won” is usually the starting point of assessing liability to pay costs. Complications arise when one party “won a bit” but not all it was seeking. We have a detailed consideration of these issues here. (Whether…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 23rd JANUARY 2025: HOW TO AVOID “DICING WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH”
Readers of this blog know that issues relating to service of the claim form are a regular feature of the blog. There were numerous posts last year. There are likely to be issues throughout 2026. This webinar is designed to…
PROVIDING LEGAL SUBMISSIONS WITH INACCURATE CASE SUMMARIES: THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO WOULD “NEITHER CONFIRM OR DENY” THAT AI WAS USED
We are returning to the vexed issue of the (mis) use of Artificial Intelligence when providing written submissions to the court (in the case the First Tier Tribunal). The judge found that summaries provided were inaccurate. The judgment points…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIRD PARTIES AT COURT: NO NOTICE NECESSARY…
Is a third party, with no relationship to the case, entitled to see the witness statements being used in the hearing? That is the issue considered in this case which, unusually, was an application for judicial review of a County…
CLAIMS AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEATHS ARISING FROM COVID WERE STRUCK OUT: CAUSATION COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED
In this case, decided yesterday, the court struck out the claimants’ case alleging that deaths were caused by, or materially contributed to, by the negligence of the defendant. The court had the important caveats in relation to the striking out…
COST BITES 326: DEFENDANT SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER: FARES FAIR IN THE BUS STATION CASE…
This judgment today is an interesting illustration of the fact that those providing support to a party can find themselves the subject of a non-party costs order. In this case the claimant company was in liquidation. The respondents to the…
AN APPLICATION FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: THIS IS NOT A “FISHING EXPEDITION” AND IT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE TO MAKE AN ORDER
It is rare to see a fully reasoned judgment from the High Court in relation to an application for pre-action disclosure. Here we have a case where the rules and principles were considered an applied. There are some important lessons…
ASKING THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF OWNERSHIP WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE SAME ARGUMENT RAN TWICE (UNSUCCESSFULLY ON BOTH OCCASIONS…)
Here we consider an argument that it was an abuse of process for a litigant to argue issues that were directly related to another action between the parties that had been stayed. The judge held that this was not an…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 47: YOU CAN’T CRITICISE A JUDGE FOR NOT FINDING ON A CASE THAT WAS NOT PLEADED (AND ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THE CLAIMANT EXPRESSLY DISAVOWED THE CLAIM NOW BEING MADE ON APPEAL)
Here we are looking at an unusual appeal. The appellant argued firstly that the judge should have found for them on a point that was not pleaded. A second argument was that the judge should have assessed loss on a…
You must be logged in to post a comment.