AVOIDING THE TERMS OF A CONSENT ORDER: A CASE THAT HAS A LOT OF LESSONS FOR SOLICITORS: WHY A CONSENT ORDER MAY NOT BE WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON
The judgment in Riordan & Ors v Moon Beevor Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) gives an interesting insight into the fallout from litigation – where the disgruntled client blames the solicitors. There are important lessons here about the drafting…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED
In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence. It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…
APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS: A WORLD OF THEIR OWN: NOT QUITE CPR 39.(3) – BUT VERY CLOSE
A party seeking to set aside an order for summary judgment has to deal with principles that are almost unique. This was emphasised in the judgment of Miss Penelpe Reed QC in Phonographic Performance Ltd v Balgun (t/a Mama Africa) [2018]…
THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of the list of issues. This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…
STAGE 3 ISSUE FEES: COURT REPAYS OVERPAID FEES: GOOD NEWS FROM LIVERPOOL
In January this year I blogged about correspondence I had received from Jon Heath, a solicitor at Levins, in Liverpool about the courts overcharging on Stage 3 issue fees. Yesterday I received an email from Jon telling me that the…
PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 1345 (QB) Master Cook allowed a defendant’s application for summary judgment. It is a classic case of a claimant being unable to prove their case against that particular defendant. …
APPLICATION FOR SPLIT TRIAL FAILS TO FLOAT THE MASTER’S BOAT
The judgment in Howard & Ors v Chelsea Yacht And Boat Company Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1118 (Ch) provides a useful “cut out and keep” summary of the principles relating to applications for a split trial. “questions of case…
“NOTHING SHORT OF A RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY CAN AMOUNT TO A PERSONAL INJURY”: SECTION 33 CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS SUFFERED “FEAR”
The judgment of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB) (24 May 2018) considers the question of what is an “injury” for the purpose of Section 33 of the Limitation Act…
PROVING THINGS 103: CAUSATION WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM A BALCONY: A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS
There is an interesting consideration of causation in the Court of Appeal judgment today in Clay v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1177. This has the flavour of a case that may go further. There is an interesting dissenting judgment…
PROVING THINGS 97: AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT
In Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a housing association had unlawfully harassed its own tenants. A major part of the problem came from the association’s highly…
STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE? WELL YOU MAY NOT BE: COURT ORDERS THAT MAY NOT COMPLY WITH COURT RULES
When the rules committee re-introduced the concept of “automatic striking out” into the rules it was always going to cause problems. A case can be automatically struck out for failure to pay the trial fee in time. However some Court…
PROVING THINGS 94: : THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO CHOOSE BOTH THE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND AND SOLICITOR: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FAR FROM COMPELLING
There are some audacious applications. However an application by defendants that attempts to dictate who the claimant’s litigation friend should be, and who their solicitor should be, should – at the very least – be backed up by firm evidence. …
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “KNOWLEDGE” AND “BELIEF”? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS
This blog has looked, many times, at the importance of giving the source of information and belief when a party (and particularly when a legal representative) makes a witness statement. It is sometimes possible for you opponent to attempt to…
VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: EXISTING GUIDANCE AND THE IICSA RECOMMENDATIONS
The criminal and family courts have developed sophisticated methods for dealing with vulnerable witnesses. There is relatively little guidance in the civil courts. This was an issue noted yesterday in the interim report of Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse. Here…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER
This post is caused by some comments on Twitter this evening. A surprising number of cases where parties have, by one method or other, disclosed a Part 36 offer. This has been done by including the offers in the trial…
A JUDGMENT ADJOURNING A TRIAL: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY; THE TRIAL BUNDLE DID NOT HAVE THE KEY DOCUMENT (AND MORE)
The short judgment of Mr Justice Holman in Matthews v Matthews & Anor [2018] EWHC 906 (Fam) looks like a family case. However it is an inheritance claim and contains some surprising revelations. KEY POINTS If you are asking a judge…
NEW INSOLVENCY PRACTICE DIRECTION: CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: WATCH OUT FOR THIS
I am grateful to barrister Simon Bradshaw for pointing out that there is a new Practice Direction in force in relation to insolvency procedure. This was introduced today and comes into effect immediately. CHANGES The PD now refers to the…
SERVICE ON INSURER ALLOWED WHEN DRIVER COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED: FACT THAT INSURER HAD AN ORDER DECLARING THE POLICY VOID NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE
In Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2018] EWHC 738 (QB) Master Davison rejected an application by an insurer to set aside an order that allowed service of an unnamed driver upon the insurer. It was irrelevant that the insurer had obtained…
LEAVE TO APPEAL, APPEAL NOTICES AND THE NEED TO APPLY TO AMEND: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS CRUCIAL: KNOW THE RULES
In Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851 the Court of Appeal set out, in categorical terms, that parties should comply with the provisions relating to permission to appeal. In particular a party cannot…