ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE
A recent decision by the Bar Standards Board held that a barrister had not acted with reasonable competence when he failed to inform his client in relation to the risks of bringing a private prosecution. This decision highlights the need…
PROVING THINGS 126: FAILURE TO PROVE DISHONESTY
The judgment in Autogas (Europe) Ltd v Ochocki & Ors [2018] EWHC 2345 (Ch) highlights the difficulties for a claimant who has to prove fraud as an essential element of their claim. The judgment also emphasises the needs to plead allegations…
DEALING WITH PROCRASTINATION: A POST I HAVE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO…
Every litigator, indeed every living being, has problems with procrastination. In civil litigation this can lead to major problems and is, if truth be known, responsible for a large number of procedural issues. Here we look at practical solutions to…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 13: WHAT IS MEANT BY WITNESS “CREDIBILITY”? WHY THIS IS OFTEN CENTRAL TO A LITIGATOR’S WORK
Many civil cases turn on witness credibility, yet very little training and education is given to lawyers about assessing credibility. Every litigator has to be able to make an assessment of this when taking a case on; before issuing proceedings…
TODAY IS LOVE LITIGATING LAWYERS DAY – SERIOUSLY
August 31st is Love Litigating Lawyers Day. In America it has been celebrated widely (well there was a lot of comment on Twitter). Clearly this is clearly something that every sensible reader of this blog wants to encourage. THE…
DISCONTINUING CLAIMANT STILL HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS: CLAIMANT CANNOT PASS RISKS ON TO ANOTHER DEFENDANT
In BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Ltd v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd [2018] EWHC 1222 (TCC) Mrs Justice Jefford refused the claimant’s application for an order that it should not have to pay the costs of a defendant it discontinued against. …
SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER ON COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE: A REDETERMINATION OF THE MATTER AND NOT SUBJECT TO TIBBLES PRINCIPLES
There is a short passage in the judgment today of Master Clark in Massimo Osti SRL v Global Design And Innovation Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2263 (Ch) that provides an important reminder of the relevant principles that apply when a…
SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD: PURGING CONTEMPT OF COURT
There is a section in the Court of Appeal judgment in James v James [2018] EWCA Civ 1982 that is of some importance. It relates to the question of whether a party should appeal an order for contempt or apply to…
THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” CONSIDERED: WHEN NON-AUTHORISED PERSONS ATTEMPT TO ELBOW IN ON LITIGATION
We are looking for the third (and final) time at the judgment in Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). The judge considered the meaning of “conduct of litigation” as defined by the Legal Services Act…
WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT
I am looking again at the judgment in Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). Here we look at the crucial question of who signed the statement of truth. A difficult concept when a claim form…
SKELETON ARGUMENTS: A ROUND UP: GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING: JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS (& THERE ARE PLENTY): EXAMPLES ONLINE & SANCTIONS FOR LATE SERVICE
Recent online discussions about skeleton arguments started with a search term that led to this blog “how long should a skeleton argument be?” This was probably a good time to provide a review highlighting all the posts about skeleton arguments…
CHANGING TRACK AFTER TRIAL: CLAIM RE-ALLOCATED FROM FAST TRACK TO SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: CLAIMANT CONFINED TO SMALL CLAIM TRACK COSTS
I am grateful to Michael Cordeux from Plexus Law for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour JudgePearce, sitting in the Manchester County Court, on the 9th April 2018. It is an example of how a case…
DON’T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT
There is another aspect of the judgment in Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward & Anor [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch) that needs highlighting. The lesson here is clear: you cannot delay service of the claim form on the grounds that you…
NO DUTY ON A PARTY TO INFORM AN OPPOSING PARTY THEY ARE MAKING AN ERROR: THE APPEAL JUDGMENT IN PHOENIX IN FULL:
I have already noted that the judgment at first instance in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) has been overturned. The full appeal judgment is now available on BAILLI at [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch), a decision of HH…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 5: REVIEW OF SECTION 33 PRINCIPLES: WHY LIMITATION WASN’T HEARD FIRST
This is the fifth in the series that looks at the decision of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The judgment contains a useful review and survey of Section 33 and…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL
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. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…
YOU’VE STARTED SO YOU’LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER
In Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley & Anor [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB) Master Davison set aside the claimant’s notice of discontinuance made after reading the defendant’s additional written submissions after a hearing. The notice of discontinuance was viewed as “tactical….
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DATE OF ISSUE FOR LIMITATION” PURPOSES AND THE “DATE OF ISSUE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE
There were a number of search terms which led people to this blog today that related to the date of service and date of issue. The confusion is, perhaps, easy to understand The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date…
CLAIMANT OBTAINS INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER DEFENDANT’S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: “BIMBLING” AND OTHER TALES OF MODERN LITIGATION
On the Leigh Day website there is a link to a judgment of H.H.J Alan Gore QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in the case of Holmes -v- West London Mental Health NHS Turst (29th June 2018). The judge…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE
This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE
Curiously there are two cases today that deal with the role of lawyers and the joint report. The first I will look at is the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)….
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 3 PART 7: LADY JUSTICE MACUR: NOT DIVERTING FROM A SCRIPT AND STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE THAT POSE AS QUESTIONS
In this post I am recommending you read an interview with Lady Justice Macur by the Law Society “the art of good advocacy”. This is an interview following a seminar with the same name given in April 2016. Remember these…
YOU LOST AT TRIAL – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW…
In Liqwd Inc & Anor v L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat) Mr Justice Birss refused a defendant’s application to “reopen the trial and decide one of the issues afresh” taking into account new evidence. “Many litigants, having…
WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE…
In FPH Law (a firm) v Brown (t/a Integrum Law) [2018] EWCA Civ 1629 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against a finding on a preliminary issue. There was a potential cause of action between two firms of solicitors…
SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION, SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE – THIS IS THE CPR
In TPE v Franks [2018] EWHC 1765 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles set aside a default judgment. The case contains some important observations as to how the courts should consider an application to set aside a default judgment – considering…
SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE – BOOK REVIEW: BUY IT AND READ IT: £30 WORTH SPENDING
Disputes about costs between lawyers and their (former) clients can be “challenging”. Indeed they can be vitriolic and expensive. The lawyer thinking “We’ve done the work” – the client thinking “how much” and “I got nothing out of it, why…
THE “TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS”: INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON
In Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some telling observations about the usefulness of witness statements prepared for the case. This is a common observation in relation to witness…
COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS
Last week I set out the responses on Twitter about professional courtesy and conduct. This is a good opportunity to recap on the four posts on this subject. “AGGRESSIVE CORRESPONDENCE” AND EFFECTIVE LITIGATION: ARE THE TWO SYNONYMOUS OR DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED…
ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION
In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered. “It would be quite wrong…
WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report. The judge,…
AGGRESSIVE INTER-SOLICITOR CORRESPONDENCE: PISTOLS AT DAWN & THE DANGERS OF TALKING ON TRAINS: LESSONS FROM TWITTER
Earlier this week I tweeted a link to earlier posts on this blog “aggressive correspondence”. The responses on Twitter make for interesting (and entertaining) reading. The legal Twitterati provide quite a few lessons here – from the art of brevity…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
WHEN THE OTHER SIDE’S LAWYER SENDS THE COURT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE DILEMMA OF THE PARALEGAL “WHISTLE BLOWER”
Several people have pointed out the judgment in Bruzas v Saxton [2018] EWHC 1619 (Fam) to me. This is a case that could have profound effects for the profession and the principles of legal professional privilege. This is the preliminary…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 5: THE JUDGE’S GUIDE TO ADVOCACY SERIES: TWO AND A HALF DONE
There are two completed series on judge’s guide to advocacy – and we are part way through the third. There is still plenty of material available and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fourth series. Advice has been…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 4: AVOIDING PROBLEMS AFTER MITCHELL: LIVING IN THE SHADOW OF THE BIKE
It is universally recognised that the Court of Appeal judgment in Mitchell was a mistake. The Master of the Rolls stated that the decision in Mitchell decision led to a “febrile atmosphere” leading to “unreasonable decision making”. There were 219…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 3: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
This is the third post that looks back at series of posts over the past five years. The series on avoiding negligence claims was written at the end of 2013. The emphasis was on avoiding negligence claims, particularly for personal injury…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 2: WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL: 10 POSTS THAT STARTED ON A TRAIN STATION
I am continuing looking back at series on this blog over the past five years. A series of posts in early 2017 was probably the most “collaborative” work on this blog. Dozens of people participated in giving advice to law…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF FIFTH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS 1: POSTS ABOUT STRESS AND WORKLOAD FOR LITIGATORS AND LITIGANTS
This week sees the 5th anniversary of the start of Civil Litigation Brief as a blog. I am marking this by going over some of the key series of posts over the five year period. Here I recap on those…
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
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SEE THE REPORT HERE 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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.