FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: THE DANGERS OF LEAVING SERVICE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE
It is the middle of January (bluebells nowhere in sight) and we have already have a claim form case to consider. In Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland [2017] EWHC 3368 (QB) Sir David Eady considered whether service (at the…
SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DURING CLOSING SUBMISSIONS AT TRIAL: A “HIGHLY UNUSUAL CASE”
I am grateful to barrister Robert Smith for sending me a copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Gargan in the case of Jackson -v- Durham County Council & ors (20th December 2017). The judgment dealt with the issue…
PRESENTING THE CASE PROPERLY FOR YOUR CLIENT: TRIAL BUNDLES: RESURRECTING THE ADVICE GIVEN BY “LEGAL ORANGE”
The average lifespan of a blog is around 100 days. One blog on law and litigation that stopped posting several years ago was Legal Orange . A blog that started in December 2013 and where the last post was December…
THE DANGER OF ISSUING UNDER PART 8 AND THEN DOING VERY LITTLE: COURT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO LIFT STAY: ACTION STRUCK OUT
I am grateful to barrister Richard Whitehall for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Pearce in the case of Lyle -v- Allianz Insurance plc (Liverpool CC 21st December 2017). It is a case that illustrates…
EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT
The decision of District Judge Glen in Kansal -v- Tang (31st January 2017, County Court at Slough) is available on the DWF website. It says a lot about “expert” evidence about hire rates. In particular the judge’s comment that evidence…
AN UNAPOLOGETIC REPEAT: WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT’S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Every year or so I repeat one point about insurance. It has caused a stir every time I have written about it. As the numbers of people who read this blog increase, and because people can forget things. I am…
HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE
I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This judgment deals with the issue…
COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL – THE FULL JUDGMENT
I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) at the end of last year. The full judgment is now available and is attached here 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment A SUMMARY The…
“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT
In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…
PREVIOUS FINDINGS OF FOREIGN LAW CAN BE BINDING: THE ACT, THE NOTICES AND A CASE
We have looked at the decision in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) Mr Justice Picken in the context of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act. There was a brief description of a little used…
TWO ISSUES RELATING TO COSTS: STAGE 3 ISSUE FEES; COSTS BUDGETING IN FATAL CASES WHERE THERE IS A CHILD DEPENDENT
I had an interesting email this morning from Jon Heath, solicitor at Levins, Liverpool. It deals with two distinct issue: Stage 3 issue fees. Costs budgeting in a fatal case where there is a child involved. STAGE 3 ISSUE FEES….
LIMITATION AMNESTIES: AN INTERESTING CASE
There is an interesting case comment on the DACbeachcroft website in relation to limitation amnesties. Andrews v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The comment is by Joe Walton. It reports a case where a claimant sought an extension of…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (I): “SURVIVING THE EMOTIONS OF LITIGATION” & “THINGS THAT IRRITATE JUDGES”
This is the fourth annual review on this blog. This year I have decided to break it into a number of reviews. First it is interesting to look at what is being read on this site and the search terms…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 3: LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND “IMPLICIT” ORDERS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
We have already looked twice at the “sparring” arguments in relation to procedure in the case of McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm). A further procedural issue arose as to whether a party was debarred from calling evidence at all. The…
THE COSTS OF PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THE CAP ALWAYS FITS
In W Portsmouth and Company Ltd v Lowin [2017] EWCA Civ 2172 the Court of Appeal held that the cap on the costs of provisional assessment continues to apply even when a receiving party has beaten their own Part 36 offer…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: McGANN -v- BISPING: ROUND 1: DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT SERVICE OF A NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19
The judgment today in McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm) involves multiple issues in relation to civil evidence, procedure and witness credibility. Here I want to look at just one issue – the failure to serve a notice under CPR…
COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL – IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD
The decision in Salekipour & Anor v Parmar [2017] EWCA Civ 2141 was made after three previous hearings a (including two appeal hearings) in the lower courts. It was the only time the claimants were successful. It involved an important procedural…
COURT OF APPEAL STATES INDEMNITY COSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED: SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BULLISH IN BRADFORD…
It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to interfere with a discretionary order in relation to costs. It is even more unusual for the court to replace an order for costs on the standard basis with indemnity costs. This…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT ISSUES IN BREACH OF CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER
In Couper v Irwin Mitchell LLP & Ors [2017] EWHC 3231 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold refused the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions when the claimant had issued proceedings in breach of a civil restraint order. The claimant, however, was given…
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS DEPLOYED IN COURT: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION
The judgment of Master McCloud in Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution – access to courts – open justice) [2017] EWHC 3154 (QB) considers the issue of whether the public should have access to documents disclosed during the course…
HOT TUBBING OF EXPERTS: NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
The 93rd Update on Practice Direction Amendments also introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts. This gives the trial judge a considerable degree of flexibility about the way in which expert evidence is heard. These rules came…
CLAIMANT ACCEPTING PART 36 OFFER LATE: COURT ORDERED INDEMNITY COSTS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN EXPIRY AND ACCEPTANCE
In Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 3152 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered the court’s discretion when a claimant accepted a defendant’s Part 36 offer late. KEY POINTS A court had jurisdiction to vary the normal order for costs when a claimant…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
CLAIMANT BEATS HIS OWN PART 36 OFFER: INTERESTS, COSTS AND HOW THE ADDITIONAL 10% IS CALCULATED
In Mohammed v The Home Office [2017] EWHC 3051 (QB) Mr Edward Peperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered the appropriate award for interest and additional damages when a claimant had beaten their own Part 36 offer. …
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 5: REMEMBER JUDGES MAY BE TALKING ABOUT YOU: ADVICE FROM THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO
Here we look at an interview with San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Curtis Karnow. The interview was about a book the judge had written “Litigation in Practice”, which is available in the UK. The original interview by is Ros Todd….
WITNESS CREDIBILITY, VERY BAD SINGING AND A MOVIE: ALL HUMAN LIFE IS HERE: (SOMETHING FOR LAWYERS TOO…)
The decision in Martin & Anor v Kogan & Ors [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) centred on witness credibility. Not so much honesty but accuracy of recollection. It illustrates the issue of how the judge goes about assessing evidence when witnesses…
PROVING THINGS 76: A RECAP – I DIDN’T EXPECT TO GET THIS FAR…
Today saw the 75th in the series “proving things”. I never anticipated that the series would run so long, I initially planned around 10 posts. Now we have reached 75 (and with no plans to stop) this is an appropriate…
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH AND LEGAL HYPOCRISY: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM DOCTORS?
Lawyers, particularly litigators, are infinitely wise. This is because we specialise in hindsight: “Why didn’t you do that?” ; “You should have done that”; “Why wasn’t that written down?” This is particularly acute in clinical negligence cases where one profession…
PRO BONO COSTS ORDERS: NOT JUST FOR CHRISTMAS
I had an email this morning from Sue Nash asking me to publicise the ability of the court to make pro bono costs orders. Here is a reminder. It is important that those representing a party pro bono is aware…
PROVING THINGS 73: FORESEEABILITY: NOT A TEST SET IN STONE BUT A MATTER OF COMMONSENSE
Foreseeability of damages is one of those topics that takes up a lot of space in text books but is rarely an issue in practice. The question of foreseeability of damages did, however, form a part of the judgment we…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 3: SKELETON ARGUMENTS, PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION: AN ABSOLUTE GOLDMINE
This blog has many posts that record cases where judges have been critical of the contents (and usually length) of skeleton arguments. A remedy for most of these issues has been available since 2004. Gray’s Inn prepared a paper “Skeleton…
SORRY SILKS: IMPORTANT AS YOU ARE THE CASE IS NOT BEING HELD UP FOR YOU: THE TAIL IS NOT GOING TO WAG THE DOG
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2017] EWHC 2844 (QB) contains some telling observations about case management, listing and the need to comply with the overriding objective. “Fitting hearings around [counsel’s] availability has…
SUING THE WRONG DEFENDANT? SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS?
It is always embarrassing to find out you are suing the wrong defendant and have to apply for substitution (although we have looked at cases in which the wrong claimant has issued proceedings). This issue was considered by Mr Justice…
PROVING THINGS 72: THE BARRISTER’S LAMENT: BUNDLES WHEN THE CLAIMANT DOES THE DEFENDANT’S JOB FOR THEM
Much has been written on this blog about the preparation of bundles. Some bundles are prepared on the basis that every single disclosed document should be included. In doing so many claimants are causing harm to their own case. Disclosed…
BE WARY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY – IF YOU SERVE AND DO NOTHING
CPR 15,11(2) provides for an automatic stay. The judgment in Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd & Anor v Al-Sanea & Anor [2017] EWHC 2845 (Comm) shows that it is normally not difficult to lift that stay. The key point is to know…
WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH? BOUDICCA, POSSESSORY TITLE AND THE JUDGE’S ROLE AS FACT FINDER: “DETERMINED COMPETITORS IN AN IMPLAUSIBILITY CONTEST”
In McClelland v Elvin & Ors [2017] EWHC 2795 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered an appeal where the trial judge had found against a party claiming adverse possession. There are some interesting observations in relation to Roman Britain, grounds of…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 2, PART 2: BEING PERSUASIVE: “CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTS ARE SLEEPING PILLS ON PAPER”
The second post in this series takes us to Washington. A detailed article by Judge Stephen J. Dwyer, Leonard J. Feldman & Ryan P. McBridet called “How to Write, Edit, and Review Persuasive Briefs: Seven Guidelines from One Judge and Two…
WIKIPEDIA IN THE COURTS (SO FAR): MUSIC, BREWERIES, CANALS, DOG WHISTLE POLITICS AND GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: SOME QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED
I have had to apologise in the past for taking small parts of a judicial judgment and scrutinising them closely in relation to matters of procedure or evidence. This apology is particularly apposite in relation to the judgment in Oldham Metropolitan…
FONTS, LAWYERS AND THE RULES: NEVER, EVER USE COMIC SANS
There was a recent discussion on Twitter about the appropriate fonts for lawyers to use. At times it was a heated discussion. This led me to look at the rules and guidance as to the use of fonts in litigation,…
PRACTISING “DEFENSIVE LITIGATION” : ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS GATHERED TOGETHER
What many (if not most) of the posts on this blog make clear is that there is now precious little room for error in civil procedure. To operate effectively, and profitably, we have to develop systems of “defensive litigation”. That…
MYTHS ABOUT PROCEDURE: THE DATE FOR SERVICE IS NOT CALCULATED FROM THE DAY THE COURT RECEIVES THE CLAIM FORM: IT IS CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF “ISSUE”
In an earlier post on limitation myths I recounted how I often received phone calls from worried solicitors who feared they had missed a limitation period. The papers had been received by the court within the period, the date of…
ANOTHER SORRY TALE – FORGING SIGNATURES ON WITNESS STATEMENTS: A “PRECEDENT” WITNESS STATEMENT CAN RARELY BE A GOOD THING
The Law Society Gazette carries an account of a solicitor struck off for “forging” the signature on witness statements. I want to concentrate on the way that the witness statements themselves were produced. This was not dishonest but is worrying….
BEING A WITNESS IN COURT: “AVOIDING HUMILIATION”: USEFUL LINKS (VIDEOS TOO)
This idea for this post comes from another blog. Pink Tape has a recent post giving parents tips on giving evidence in court. This caused me to look at the assistance available generally. This is one part of the legal…
HALLOWEEN FOR LITIGATORS: WHAT KEEPS LAWYERS AWAKE AT NIGHT? DEADLINES, SKELETONS, IMPOSTER SYNDROME & DEFENDANTS RISING FROM THE DEAD
I am not a great fan of Halloween. However when Jenna Kisala suggested there should be a post on “Halloween for Litigators”. I couldn’t resist the challenge. I then promptly delegated the task to Twitter. Here are the tweets so…
WHEN THE PLEADINGS SHOULD NOT NAME SOMEONE: HIGH COURT OBSERVATIONS
In Huda v Wells & Ors [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin made some observations that make it clear that it may be prudent for statements of case not to name vulnerable individuals. THE CASE The defendants set aside an…
MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION 2: THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ASSAULT IS SIX YEARS
This is a myth I didn’t know existed until I heard it being propounded in a bar last week (and which led to the start of this series). Strangely, unlike some of the myths were are looking at, it has…
STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TRIAL FEE: THIS IS ALWAYS A POINT TO WATCH
In April this year the rules were amended to introduce a concept of “automatic striking out”. Put simply if a claimant does not pay the court fee by the relevant date. I have seen occasions where this has had effect….
CAPACITY TO LITIGATE : LITIGATION FRIEND CAN PROPERLY CONTINUE WITH ACTION WHERE CLAIMANT WAS WITHOUT CAPACITY AT BEGINNING OF CASE
I was speaking at the MASS conference yesterday about capacity and litigation. It is always the way of things that an interesting point on an issue comes up the day after a presentation. An issue on capacity to litigate arose…
COST BUDGET SERVED TWO MONTHS LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ALLOWED: DELAY DOES NOT ALWAYS GIVE RISE TO A SIGNIFICANT BREACH
I am grateful to my colleague Colin Richmond for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Gosnell In Hewitt -v- Smith (Bradford County Court 16th June 2017) relating to a successful appeal from a refusal to…
THE CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF AND ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY: AVOIDING HINDSIGHT
In Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Nasir & Ors [2017] EWHC 2466 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered issues relating to the standard of proof when there are allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Part of the judgment also deals with the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.