AN OFFER THAT IMPOSES A CONDITION AS TO COSTS IS NOT A VALID PART 36 OFFER: MERE FAILURE TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS
In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors (Costs) [2019] EWHC 1545 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that an offer that attempted to limit costs was not a valid Part 36 offer. The judge…
FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS LIABLE TO COVER VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN OFF ROAD: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of Mr Justice Soole that the Motor Insurers Bureau were liable to indemnify the driver of a vehicle that was being driven “off…
PROCEDURAL ISSUES ON COMMITTAL APPLICATIONS: GETTING THE PROCEDURE RIGHT
The judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Quantum Tuning Ltd v White [2019] EWHC 1376 (QB) highlights some errors made in a committal application. Fortunately for the claimant in that case the procedural errors were overlooked and contempt established. Nevertheless…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD
This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”. That case contains…
ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)
I am looking again at the decision in O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23. That case predates the more recent Court of Appeal judgment in Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898. However it is another example of a party attempting to use the…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: “MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE”
Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions. The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known and widely reported recently. This is one of the matters that crosses boundaries and gives rise to common problems across…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 46: HOW TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL: HINTS AND TIPS FROM THE INTERNET
There is an ongoing debate going on on Twitter at the moment about “how to instruct counsel”. More particularly the problems caused by “instructions” being sent in a chain of emails (or other electronic communication) with major difficulties in finding…
ANOTHER TRIAL BUNDLE CASE: ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE TRIAL BUNDLE: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT DISMISSED
In Al-Balhaa v Raphael & Ors [2019] EWHC 1323 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol upheld a finding that the action was struck out because of the claimant’s failure to prepare a trial bundle and relief from sanctions should not be granted. …
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…
TELEPHONE HEARINGS WHEN COUNSEL WON’T ANSWER THE TELEPHONE: THE UNHAPPY LORD JUSTICE
There is a short judgment recently arrived on BAILLI which fits in well with the earlier post about telephone and electronic hearings. In Nixon & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2694 Lord Justice…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 4: TIME ESTIMATES FOR HEARINGS (AND WHY YOU SHOULD VISIT KINGSTON UPON HULL)
There were difficult choices to be made when delegates selected their particular lectures at the recent APIL conference. In a show of northern solidarity (and because I am interested in these kind of things) I went to see District Judge…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 1: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR
I have been at the APIL annual conference this week. Ostensibly to give a talk about expert evidence, but a blogger (indeed any practising lawyer) can never miss an opportunity to pick up ideas. I went to a “Fee earner…
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…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE
In Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 817 Lord Justice Lewison set out a “cut out and keep” guide for parties attempting to appeal findings of fact. A reminder of the uphill battle that appellants…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: WHY A DAY EARLY IS SO VERY DIFFERENT TO A DAY LATE: THE ROBERT CRITERIA
There is a world of different between a prospective and retrospective application to extend time, or comply with an order. Every litigator has to know about Robert -v- Momentum Services [2003] EWCA Civ 229. An application made in advance means that the…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Price -v- Cwm Taf University Health Board [2019] EWHC 938 (QB). A transcript of the case is available on the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of ongoing litigation were being put copied onto social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 41: SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF A PART 36 OFFER: CPR 36.8
The decision in Calonne Construction Ltd v Dawnus Southern Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 754 , looked at earlier in this blog highlighted one part of CPR Part 36 that often goes unnoticed. It is important that a recipient of a Part 36 offer…
ASSESSING EVIDENCE 26 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: THE JUDICIAL APPROACH
In Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1043 (Ch) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the question of assessing evidence of a brief incident, 26 years after the event, in a case…