MESSAGE FROM THE DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGE IN MANCHESTER: STAFF REDUCTIONS IN THE COURTS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: PRACTICAL POINTS TO HELP
It is a sign of the times when the Designated Civil Judge sends out a message dealing with pressures on the Court, and staff in particular. Manchester Law Society has a “Message from the Designated Civil Judge” in which the…
BACK TO BASICS 98: COPYING THE OTHER SIDE INTO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT: IT IS DANGEROUS TO ASSUME THAT THESE ARE “ADMINISTRATIVE” MATTERS
I am grateful to barrister Justin Bates for drawing my attention to the final paragraphs of the judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Debenham-Schon v Anchor Hanover Group [2021] EWHC 3023 (QB). It concerns the duty of a litigant to…
THE NEW RULES ON FIXED COSTS: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: THEY CANNOT AFFECT CURRENT CASES
I was at a social event on Friday night (but a blogger is never really off duty). During the course of the evening someone told me that they had had recently had a personal injury case where the judge, rather…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE AFTER JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY: A REVIEW OF THE CASES
We are looking again at the judgment of Jason Beer KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Celebrity Speakers Ltd v Daniel & Ors [2023] EWHC 2158 (KB). The judge had to consider what a defendant could argue as…
CAN A CLAIMANT RECOVER MORE THAN THEY HAVE CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM FORM? YES THEY CAN…
We will be looking several aspects of the judgment of Jason Beer KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Celebrity Speakers Ltd v Daniel & Ors [2023] EWHC 2158 (KB). The first issue is a surprisingly common one. Can…
DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: “THE SCHEDULE WAS A FICTION … THE POINT WAS RECOGNISED ON BEHALF OF BOTH CLAIMANTS”: SELECTED QUOTES (AND A WEBINAR)
The the judgment of Costs Judge James in HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2118 (SCCO) is one of a long series of cases where judges have been critical of the way in which schedules of damages have been…
THE COVER UP IS INVARIABLY WORSE THAN THE ERROR: WHAT TO DO WHEN MISTAKES ARE MADE
The post earlier this week based on the article by the Honourable Joseph Quinn led to to look in detail at one point made – that of avoiding a “cover up” and acting immediately to deal with mistakes. This led…
SKELETON ARGUMENTS: KEY POINTS AND ISSUES: ANOTHER REMINDER
Periodically I reprise the links to online guidance on skeleton arguments. Here we have a series of links to posts and articles giving guidance on written submissions. “Sir James Hunt has told us of the (unattributed) judicial reaction on receiving…
COST BITES 97: CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED 62.3 HOURS TO DRAFT THE LETTER OF CLAIM: WHAT SHOULD LETTERS OF CLAIM CONTAIN?
In HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2118 (SCCO) Costs Judge James considered the question of how much time should have been spent drafting a letter of claim in a clinical negligence case. She disallowed the 62…
TWELVE KEY POINTS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS ABOUT BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (AND A PLUG FOR A WEBINAR)
I still see, on a fairly regular basis, problems caused in personal injury cases where a claimant is bankrupt and has failed to tell their lawyers. Equally often there are cases where it is clear that a claimant is, or…
WHEN LAWYERS GIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IS ESSENTIAL
We are looking back at a post in 2019. Primarily because the issues the case raises in relation to lawyers making witness statements are prevalent. There are numerous examples on this blog of the difficulties that can occur when a…
WITNESS STATEMENTS, PART 18 QUESTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE MASTER WAS RIGHT TO ORDER THE CLAIMANT TO DISCLOSE HIS WITNESS EVIDENCE FIRST
It has taken to the third time of writing about the decision in Jennings v Otis Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB) to get to the detail of what the appeal was actually about. This part of the judgment is important…
AN INTERESTING ISSUE: CLAIMANT WHO FAILS TO PLEAD CONTRACTUAL INTEREST – DOESN’T GET INTEREST AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Foxton in Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc v Goodrich Corporation [2023] EWHC 2002 (Comm) illustrates an important issue in relation to interest. If a successful party has a contractual right to interest, but has not pleaded that…
ADVISING ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: A RECAP: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”
Continuing with the look back at previous years we are looking at a post written in July 2019 about advising on the risks of litigation. “The difficulties facing those giving advice about litigation is summed up in a…
A LICENCE TO THRILL: JAMES BOND, THE MOVIES AND THE COURTS: LEGAL TALES THAT WON’T SCARE THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF YOU
This morning I am encouraging you to read ‘James Bond and the Law’ : A talk to the Manchester Business and Property Courts Forum [2023] UKSpeech 7REH2, given by Mr Justice Foxton. A look through at the James Bond franchise…
REDACTION OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ROUTINE: ADMINISTRATIVE COURT DECISION
In FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin) Mr Justice Swift made the point the redaction of documents in judicial review proceedings should not be routine. THE CASE The judge was…
UNSUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT CANNOT INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER DRAFT JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN
In Manolete Partners Plc v White [2023] EWHC 1644 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC (sitting as a High Court judge) considered an application to adduce further evidence after a draft judgment had been circulated. The application was refused. The respondent was…
JUST LET GO: COURTS CANNOT FORCE A LITIGATION FRIEND TO KEEP ON ACTING: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Major v Kirishana [2023] EWHC 1593 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter allowed an appeal in which a judge had refused a Litigation Friend’s application to terminate their appointment. The judgment makes it clear that there will be very few circumstances…
ON THIS BLOG 10 YEARS AGO: PART 36; INTERIM PAYMENTS AND SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”
Now that the blog is 10 years (and 2 days) old it gives me an opportunity to look back at previous posts in a way that remains useful. Some (but not all) of the posts over the past decade stand…
TEN YEARS OF BLOGGING : A DECADE OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF: A QUICK LOOK BACK AND AN EVEN QUICKER LOOK FORWARD
The 24th June 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the blog. I did worry, when I started, whether there would be enough material to . However, over the past 10 years I have never been short of…
USING TRANSLATORS: COURT HEARINGS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHERE CAN IT ALL GO WRONG
In Alam v Alam & Anor [2023] EWHC 1460 (Ch) the Court had to deal with issues relating to translators and witness statements. There were several issues in relation to the use of translators. The evidence of one witness was…
3,450 CLAIMANTS CAN USE THE SAME CLAIM FORM: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION ON CPR 7.3.
I am grateful to David Platt KC for sending me a copy of the decision of the Divisional Court in Abbott -v- Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB). The Court overturned a previous decision of a Master and allowed…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 97: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: 10 BASIC POINTS
This is not the first time that this series has dealt with this issue. The post earlier this week on the judgment in MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Ltd [2023] EWHC 1336 (Ch) shows that it is a regular issue….
CLAIMANT DID NOT RECEIVE PART 36 BENEFITS WHEN IT BEAT ITS OWN OFFER BY SEVEN PENCE: A REQUEST TO CAPITULATE IS NOT A GENUINE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Griffith in Gohil -v-Advantage Insurance Company (County Court at Birmingham, 11th May 2023) a copy of which is available here. Gohil v…
DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS CONSIDERED: THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT MUST GIVE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
The judgment in MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Ltd [2023] EWHC 1336 (Ch) records it was before “Master Marsh (sitting in retirement). However the Master has lost none of his pre-retirement keenness for ensuring that parties filing witness statements…
RULE CHANGES ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2023: FIXED RECOVERABLE COSTS AND ALL THAT: LOOKING AHEAD – A QUICK GLANCE AT THE PRIMARY SOURCES
The rules introducing the “Intermediate Track” for cases between £25,000 and £100,000 are now published, they come into force on the 1st October 2023. There are links to the source material below. A more detailed guide to the changes will…
APPEALS, BUNDLES AND “SPEAKING NOTES”: BUNDLES(INCLUDING PAGE NUMBERING) GO AWRY: A “SPEAKING NOTE” IS NOT TO BE USED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SKELETON ARGUMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Masih & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 1280 (KB) contains many matters of interest in relation to the conduct of the trial and appeal. Here we look at two aspects:…
THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (3): EMBARGOED JUDGMENTS – DON’T DISCLOSE EARLY TO ANYONE (LET ALONE THE LAWYER’S PR TEAM…)
The new guide has extended the section on embargoed judgments. This makes it absolutely clear that the disclosure of judgments to third parties (for example the lawyers’ PR teams) for the purpose of preparing a press release to publicise the…
THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
A new edition of the King’s Bench Division Guide was published last week (although it is dated March 2023). I will take a short look at the major changes. Firstly looking at a new passage in relation to the instruction…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 96: PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE APPLICATION TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGE HAS TO BE MADE AT THE INITIAL HEARING (OR ADJOURNMENT THEREOF)
The judgment of HHJ Pelling in FG Financing Ltd & Anor v Lagun [2023] EWHC 126 (Comm) serves as a useful reminder of the limited period of time available to make an application to the first-instance judge for permission to…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 95: ACCEPTING A PART 36 OFFER WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DEFENDANT
This post arises out of an interesting question I was asked in a recent webinar on Part 36.* The questioner asked wanted to accept a Part 36 offer by one defendant and continue the action against others. The situation here…
PART 36: NORMAL COSTS PROVISIONS DISAPPLIED WHEN A CHILD ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER LATE:
Yesterday I gave a webinar on recent developments in Part 36*. Almost inevitably a new case was reported as soon as the webinar finished. Further that case addresses, directly, some of the interesting questions that arose in the webinar. In…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND PART 36: A USEFUL NOTE OF JUDGMENT
I am grateful to solicitor Bethan Parry from Browne Jacobson for sending me a note of the decision of HHJ Khan in Rix -v- Wall, the details of which are set out below. The note is interesting in that it…
CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE WITH THIRD SET OF PROCEEDINGS REFUSED: CPR 38.7 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
In Danielewicz v Cannon & Anor [2023] EWHC 948 (KB) Master Thornett refused the claimant’s application for an order under CPR 38.7. The claimant had issued proceedings twice before, but discontinued those actions. The judgment contains a detailed consideration of…
WASTED COSTS AGAINST A SOLICITOR BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO ENSURE THE CLAIMANT HAD PROBATE PRIOR TO ISSUE: A CASE TO POINT
I am grateful to solicitor Jonathan Fuggle of Browne Jacobson for sending me a copy of the judgment in Rafferty -v- Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, a copy of which is available here 1460100_Rafferty v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust_Approved Judgment_31.05.22 (2). …
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 25th APRIL 2023
This blog spends a lot of time looking at cases where things have gone wrong, for one reason and another. This webinar on the 25th April 2023 looks at the main problem areas in litigation and the practical steps that…
ANOTHER CHANGE IN THE RULES ON APRIL 6th: PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS CAN SAY GOODBYE (IN SOME CASES) TO THE ADMIRALTY COURT
The focus on the new rules on QOCS coming into force on the 6th April may lead to losing sight of some other changes. In particular the new rules and amendments to the Practice Direction in relation to accidents at…
LITIGANTS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER CANNOT ISSUE VALID PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE COURT: “RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION” HAD NO EFFECT: ACTION WAS A NULLITY
In Williamson v The Bishop of London & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 379 the Court of Appeal held that a person subject to a Civil Proceedings Order must obtain permission from the High Court so they could issue valid proceedings. …
FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT PROPERLY AND ISSUING OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 674 (KB) Master Cook determined a number of procedural issues. Here we look at two: (1) the failure to serve on a defendant properly; (2) the question of…
A LITIGANT CAN “APPEAR” AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Owen v Black Horse Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 325 the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant’s appeal. The claim had been struck out at the start of a Small Claims Track hearing on the grounds that attendance by the…
MISTAKES AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIED: A WORKING EXAMPLE
In Doyle -v- the NFU (St Helens County Court 24th February 2023) Deputy District Judge Murray held that the doctrine of mistake applied to offers made on the Pre-Action Protocol for road traffic accidents. I am grateful to solicitor Jamil…
SERVICE ON A SOLICITOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE: WHAT IS MEANT BY A “PLACE OF BUSINESS”?
In Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) & Anor [2023] EWHC 375 (Ch) Master Brightwell rejected a defendant’s argument that he had not been properly served at his “place of business”. The case shows the…
RULE CHANGES IN APRIL 2023: UP TO £100,000 CAN BE PAID INTO COURT FOR A PROTECTED BENEFICIARY
Another change coming into force on the 6th April is an increase, to £100,000, that the court can order be paid into court for a protected beneficiary. This is, quite specifically, aimed to reduce the number of cases that come…
A COURT CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ONCE IT HAS GIVEN UNCONDITIONAL PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE DEADWEIGHT OF THE FINALITY PRINCIPLE PREVAILS
In National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Limited & Anor [2023] EWHC 300 (Comm) Mr Justice Butcher refused an application for permission to appeal to be subject to a condition of payment into court. The court had…
VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: THE VULNERABLE WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE:
There are relatively few cases relating to vulnerable witnesses in civil courts. In GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie considered the terms of an order made to protect a vulnerable witness. Although the wording of the…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: RECOURSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO NO AVAIL
In Bank of Scotland Plc v Hoskins [2023] EWHC 306 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for relief from sanctions following late service of witness evidence. The Defendant’s attempt to invoke Human Rights…
COSTS BITES 53: POSSIBILITY OF AN APPEAL AND INABILITY TO RELY ON COSTS BUDGET ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR REFUSING AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS
In Isaac v Tan & Anor (Re Costs) [2022] EWHC 3478 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson considered issues of costs following an unsuccessful unfair prejudice application relating to the shares of Cardiff City Football Club. He held that the application…
“INTERROGATION” OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
We have seen many cases relating to issues arising following the sending out of draft judgments. Another example can be viewed in the Court of Appeal judgment today in C & Ors, Re (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2023] EWCA Civ 38…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM
In Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal, which was an attempt to subvert the principles of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”). The claimant discontinued the action…
A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR LITIGANTS: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PAY £17,500 IN COSTS IN A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK CASE
I am grateful to barrister Ashley Blood-Halvorsen for bringing my attention to the judgment of District Judge Lumb in Reed -v- Boswell (06/12/2022) a copy of which is available here. It is a rare example of costs being awarded against…
You must be logged in to post a comment.