HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES…)
All cases of hallucinated cases are serious, however some may be more serious than others. If we have a situation where the Crown Prosecution Service files documents which rely on cases that simply do not exist, this has to be…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE PERILS OF ISSUING A SECOND TIME: CPR 38.7 EXPLORED: NOTE THE NEED FOR SPEED…
We looked at a case last week which was a “second action” against the same defendants. It was struck out on several grounds, one of which was under CPR 38.7. It is worthwhile looking at the rule in detail …
MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
The Court considered a “Mazur” type argument in this application for permission to appeal. The appellant arguing that the claimant had never been lawfully represented at previous hearings. This argument did not get very far. The judge indicated that, even…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
Here we look at what can only be described as a “very late” application to amend a defence. It was made on the morning of the first day of trial. Surprisingly there was no explanation as to why an application…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
We are going back to July 2018 where the High Court overturned a first instance decision in favour of a claimant on a service of the claim form issue. The judgment is particularly important because the first-instance judgment appeared to…
CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
DG Calculators is an online suite of professional legal calculators, built by David Green, a barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk. There is a 14 day free trial period. (CLB members have a discount – see the link below). …
COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…
This case considers the issue of whether it was appropriate to make a non-party costs order. The Master reached a clear conclusion that it was. The individual in question was effectively the driving force behind the litigation in addition to…
THE TCC GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A DETAILED EXAMINATION
The section on the use of AI in the latest edition of The Technology and Construction Court Guide is relatively short. However it is significant. It shows that the courts recognise that AI is going to be used. “All legal…
NEW (4th) EDITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT GUIDE 2026: A QUICK GUIDE TO THE CHANGES AND THE NEW PARTS
The Fourth Edition of the Technology and Construction Court Guide came into force on 1 July 2026. It is much more than a routine update. Whilst much of the familiar structure remains, there are significant additions reflecting changes in legislation,…
EXPERT WATCH 57: JUDGE DECIDES THAT AN EXPERT, THAT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DUTIES TO THE COURT, SHOULD BE NAMED; “HE HAD A CHOICE TO INVOLVE HIMSELF IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO BE PAID FOR DOING SO…”
Here we are looking at a decision related to the case we looked at yesterday relating to a medical expert in a family case. The judge gave a decision on whether an expert, who she found had failed in their…
PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17(2): LIABILITY CATCHUP (2): A SUCCESSFUL STRESS AT WORK CLAIM CONSIDERED
We are continuing with our brief look at cases relating to liability. This case is a stress at work action where the claimant was successful. There are a considerable number of hurdles for claimants to deal with in this category…
A JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A DEFENDANT TENANT SPEAKING AT A POSSESSION HEARING JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT FILED A DEFENCE: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES HAVE PRIMACY OVER A PEREMPTORY ORDER
I am grateful to barrister James Stark for sending me a copy of this judgment which is important to all those involved in landlord and tenant litigation, but also raises interesting issues as to how far an order of the…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
We have looked several times recently at the problems caused when a litigator serves their own witness evidence on behalf of a client, particularly a “corporate” client. It often turns out that large parts of this statement are inadmissible, consisting…
EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
One of the fascinating things about procedure is how the same principles apply across a whole range of cases. This is particularly the case with issues relating to evidence, particularly expert evidence. Earlier we looked at expert evidence in relation…
EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
It is never helpful to a party’s case when a judge comes to the conclusion that the expert they have instructed is partisan. We have an example of this in this extremely high value case. There is interesting commentary on…
COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS
It is common for an unsuccessful part to argue that its liability to pay costs should be reduced because of the “conduct” of the successful party. We see such arguments raised here – with no degree of success. A party…
WHERE THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 4: NOT-SERVING PROPERLY; OBTAINING DEFAULT JUDGEMENT INCORRECTLY AND SUING A PARTY WRONGLY: A LOT OF LESSONS HERE
This post assumes that you have read post on this case earlier today. A claimant’s solicitor made a whole series of errors which led to the case being struck out against two defendants. We continue our series on what went…
SERVICE POINTS 48 : A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST ACTION (AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NEVER SERVED) LEADS TO A SECOND ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT
This is a sorry tale. Someone who may have had a perfectly good claim for damages for personal injury has their case struck out because of procedural mishaps by their own solicitors. It all stems from a failure to serve…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY (2): A SERIES OF CHECKLISTS TO HELP YOU WITH DRAFTING STATEMENTS FOR “CORPORATE” CLIENTS: THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
The normal post on back to basics came out a day early (due to an “administrative” error). However it does give us a chance to revisit the practical implications when a litigator has to draft a witness statement on behalf…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN A WITNESS STATEMENT WHEN THERE IS A CORPORATE CLIENT: PROBLEMS KEEP OCCURRING
Today we are looking at what is a common issue, and common mistake, when someone makes a witness statement for, or on behalf of a corporate client. The CPR expressly provides that a witness must state the source of “information…
COST BITES 409: A PART 36 CASE TO FINISH OFF THE WEEK: CLAIM £8.4 MILLION GET £102,000 (HAVING TURNED DOWN AN OFFER OF £3.175 MILLION): IT IS NOT “UNJUST” FOR THE CLAIMANT TO FACE TO NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES, NOR WOULD THE COURT “PICK AND CHOOSE” IN RELATION TO THE COSTS PAYABLE
If ever a case served as a warning to the risks of litigation it is this one. The claimant sought damages of up to £8.4 million but obtained judgment of £102,000. This turned out to be expensive litigation, with the…
COST BITES 408: WHO (IF ANYONE) SHOULD PAY THE COSTS WHEN THE COURT MAKES NO DECISION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE?
In this case the judge considered an argument that a claimant who made, but failed, in an application for an interim injunction should not necessarily be liable for costs. This argument was put forward on the basis that the court…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: “WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? IS IT ALL A LOTTERY? (JULY 2014): ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY CONSIDERED
This week we go back 12 years to look at one of the recurring themes of this blog: witness credibility. We looked at a judgment which was all about the judge’s assessment of the witnesses. This was made more difficult…
EXPERT WATCH 54 : THE DEPUTY MASTER SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT: IT WAS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL ISSUE
We are looking at a case where, on appeal, the judge found that a Deputy Master fell into error by failing to take into account relevant expert evidence provided by a claimant. The judge held that the Master had misunderstood…
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT “STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE…”
There are numerous cases reported on this blog where judges have been critical of the “evidence” given by solicitors in witness statements. In many cases, even on cursory examination, it transpires that the lawyer is not in a position to…
COST BITES 407: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION STRIKING OUT POINTS OF DISPUTE BECAUSE OF NON-AINSWORTH COMPLIANCE: JUDGMENT GIVEN TODAY
In this case the Court of Appeal overturned a decision, itself made on appeal, which had struck out a crucial paragraph of Points of Dispute to a bill of costs. The crucial point here, however, is that this is not…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 85: THERE IS NO “FREE PASS” WHEN AN ACTION IS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS: “THERE IS A DEFINITE SENSE OF THE CLAIMANTS THRASHING ABOUT, TRYING TO FIND ANY ISSUES WHICH COULD BE TRIED WHICH AVOIDED ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS.”
We are returning to this Court of Appeal decision for a second time. Initially we looked at the judgment in relation to the outcome – that the claims could be brought together. However there are important points made here in…
FIVE THOUSAND CLAIMANTS AND JUST EIGHT COURT FEES: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION ON CPR 7.3
In this case the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that some 5,000 individual small value cases could proceed together as, essentially, one action. The provisions of CPR 7.3 were considered and the Court held that the High Court Judge…
THE COURT WAS WRONG NOT TO STRIKE THE DEFENCE OUT: A FAILURE TO DISPUTE A POINT IN THE JERSEY COURTS MEANT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO A DEFENDANT TO ARGUE IT IN A SECOND ACTION
This is a case where, on appeal, it was held that it was not open to a defendant to bring an action because they had already had the ability to raise issues with a court in Jersey. The judge held…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: LOOKING AT SERIES 2: AND WHY THIS APPLIES TO ALL LITIGATORS… (INCLUDING THAT REGULAR MISSIVE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT THREATEN YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION..)
I will soon be starting a new series on “Advocacy – the Judge’s view”. This draws on the principle that whilst judges are the advocate’s clients they are their “consumers” so to speak. Before that it is useful to remind…
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
The Civil Justice Council is carrying out a Consultation on the Use of AI for the preparation of court documents. It published an update on its consultation findings yesterday. The preliminary view appears to be that the use of AI…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY 2: A CHECKLIST FOR THOSE CALLED UP TO PREPARE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN A “FAREPAK” TYPE SCENARIO
The previous post contained a review of the judge’s comments in the Farepak case. The judicial observations that witness statements are often misused and misunderstood is one of an extremely large number of such observations. (The “Related Posts” section below…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE CASE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT’S WITNESS EVIDENCE WAS SO BAD THAT IT WITHDREW THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS GAVE EVIDENCE: WHY THE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO WITNESS EVIDENCE NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD
Recent posts have revisited the age-old problem of witness statements being misused. They often contain argument and comment. For that reason we are revisiting the observations of Mr Justice Smith in the Farepak case farepak-judges-statement. It presents an object lesson…
WHERE THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU 3): ADVISING A CLIENT THAT IF THEY DISCONTINUE THEN THEY CAN’T COME BACK
We are again looking at the lessons that practitioners can learn from a Legal Ombudsman decision. This time it relates to the need to explain the consequences of taking a procedural step. The point here is that many matters that…
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED
This post arises out of the previous post in the series. However here I want to concentrate on one issue arising out of this. The claimant’s solicitors appear to have advised the claimant that they would not be liable to…
DAMAGES IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH AND LOSSES PRIOR TO DEATH 2026: WEBINAR 2nd JULY 2026
Not all fatal claims fall neatly under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 framework or the general rules of personal injury damages. This is an area where practitioners have to act with great sensitivity but also where a detailed knowledge of…
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 1: COSTS ADVICE ON DISCONTINUANCE
This series is about examining cases where things went wrong for litigators and what readers can do to avoid this happening to them. The aim is not to criticise those who make mistakes but to use their experience to prevent…
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
The Online Procedure Rules have been published and come into force on the 7th September 2026. Initially these apply just to possession proceedings. However they are a sign of things to come. ” The Overriding Objective of these Rules is to…
EXPERT WATCH 53 (THAT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAIN): THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS MADE MISTAKES AND THEN “GAVE AN IMPRESSION OF LOFTINESS” : THE JUDGE FELT UNABLE TO RELY ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS
Here we have an example of a judge clearly rejecting the expert evidence adduced on behalf of a defendant and giving clear grounds for the criticism of them. This was in the context of a case where the defendant had…
PROVING THINGS 293: THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: THE JUDGE DID NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES -AND THIS WAS A SUBMISSION THAT PUT THE DEFENDANT IN SOME JEOPARDY…
This is an interesting case on clinical negligence where judgment was given today. It warrants (and will receive) several posts. Here we look at the trial judge’s rejection of the argument that adverse inferences should be drawn when the claimant…
MEMBER NEWS: RENEWALS ARE GOING THROUGH SMOOTHLY – IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS THIS MAY HELP
The renewal process has being going through smoothly for most people. There are a few issues. Her we look at renewal notices, some issues with renewal and card payments, upgrading accounts and a reminder that a Corporate Account always…
EXPERT WATCH 52: A REMINDER THAT THE JUDGE REMAINS THE SOLE FINDER OF FACT: (HOWEVER THIS A CASE WHERE THE JUDGE IS HIGHLY COMPLIMENTARY ABOUT SOME OF THE EXPERTS)
Here we look at the judge’s comments on expert evidence arising from a complex case in the Commercial Court. The judgment provides a reminder that experts should not be instructed to comment on matters of fact which are the sole…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 84 : DEFENCE STRUCK OUT “THE SMALL PARTS OF THE PLEADINGS THAT DO ADDRESS THE CLAIMANT’S CARE ARE LIKE TINY ISLANDS LOST IN A VAST OCEAN OF IRRELEVANCE”
This is a case where the judge had no hesitation in striking out both a defence and counterclaim. The counterclaim had no prospect of success, the defence breached every rule and principle relating to statements of case. The judge, helpfully,…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A RULE OR AN ORDER PRESCRIBES A PAGE LIMIT TO A WITNESS STATEMENT – THEN YOU’D BETTER STICK TO IT: THE COURT IS UNLIKELY TO CONDONE “FORENSIC CHEATING”
Here we are, with no apology, looking at the same case in the earlier post again. The earlier post dealt with the issue of relief from sanction. Here I want to concentrate on the litigant’s deliberate decision to breach the…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT “DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF “BREACH NOW REPENT LATER”
Here we look at a strongly worded judgment where relief from sanctions was refused. A party had exceeded the page limit set by court directions and also served the statement late. The judge dismissed the arguments that the other side…
CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2026: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2026
Fatal accident claims involving children present unique and sensitive legal challenges for practitioners. This webinar examines claims brought on behalf of children as well as claims arising from the death of a child, highlighting the procedural, evidential, and dependency issues…
COST BITES 406: CAN A PARTY RECOVER UNNECESSARY COSTS AS DAMAGES? THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNNECESSARY SECOND ACTION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
This is a judgment that considers the difficult issue of whether a claimant, who has been put to unnecessary costs of pursuing to separate actions because of the defendant’s conduct, can claim the unnecessary elements of costs back as damages. …
THE WEBINAR ON THE SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION: WHAT LITIGATION FIRMS NEED TO KNOW: TOGETHER WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS AND TEMPLATESNOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
For those who could not make the live broadcast yesterday the webinar is available “on demand”. Viewers also receive copies of a series of checklists and guides to compliance. Including A general Supervision Checklist The Litigation Supervisor Checklist The Supervised…
COST BITES 405: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT LEAD TO A DEDUCTION OF 45% OF THEIR COSTS? A TOOTH DECISION…
This is a case where the judge had to consider whether a successful claimants costs should be reduced because of conduct. The judge found that there were grounds to criticise the claimant’s conduct of the action. However this could not…
SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW A “NEWLY APPOINTED” EMPLOYEE TO REPRESENT A LIMITED COMPANY AT A HEARING?
CPR 39.6 permits a company to be represented by an employee where the employee is authorised by the company and the court gives permission. We have here a case where the proposed representative only became an employee part-way through the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.