DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAMBERS? CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE SENT HOME…
I am grateful to barrister Christopher Buckingham for sending me a copy of the judgment in National Westminster Bank -v- Smith. (27th February 2019). A copy of which is attached here E6BA4N32 – National Westminster Bank PLC v Smith (27.02.19)…
PROVING THINGS 157: DEFECTS IN EVIDENCE “SO FUNDAMENTAL” THAT APPLICATION DISMISSED
In Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd & Ors v Virgin Media Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1827 (Ch) Mr Recorder Campbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application on the grounds that the evidence was…
ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (1): READ THIS CASE: BE WARY OF OPENING YOUR MOUTH TOO WIDE: TURN DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND GET £2.00 INSTEAD
A member of my family qualifies as a solicitor tomorrow and starts working in litigation. I have been pondering the best advice to give a newly qualified litigation solicitor. I intended a recap post of all those cases where litigants…
“CAN A DEAD PERSON BE TAKEN TO COURT?” : CPR 19.8: A RECAP
There have been a number of search terms arriving on this blog recently relating to the appropriate procedure when a party has died. Today the question was “can a dead person be taken to court?” This may be an opportune…
THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT
There is a judgment today on BAILLI in a family case. The case appears to be subject to reporting restrictions so I do not propose to link to it, or even name it, until these are clarified. However what is…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 54: SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES SHOULD NOT BE WORKS OF FICTION
Anyone drafting anything in the litigation process must remain acutely aware that there is real possibility that the document they are drafting will one day be read by a judge. This is even more likely in relation to a schedule…
DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE FINER DETAIL: NO ROOM FOR A MARGIN OF ERROR
A search led to this blog today “witness statement margin” which led me to look this issue up and realise that, despite the dozens of posts on witness statements on this blog, the important issue of margin size has never…
TWO SHORT TWEETS THAT SUM UP THE STATE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION IN 2019
In the civil courts we don’t have someone like the Secret Barrister who exposes, carefully, clearly and meticulously, the shortcomings in the justice system. However two tweets from yesterday seem to me to exemplify the current state of court administration….
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 52: THE REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: TO REPLY OR NOT TO REPLY – THAT IS THE QUESTION
Here we take a quick look at the rules and practice directions in relation to filing a Reply and Defence to a Counterclaim. In particular claimants should be very aware of the fact that a defendant can apply to enter…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those…
PART 36 OFFER WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ONE AND DEFENDANT HAD TO PAY COSTS
In Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1669 (QB) Mr Justice Knowles rejected the defendant’s argument that a Part 36 offer meant that she did not have to pay costs. THE CASE The claimant succeeded in an action for misuse of…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 49: THE CASE SUMMARY: THE RULES, SOME GUIDANCE AND AN EXAMPLE
A search term arrived on this blog today “how do I prepare a case summary for a civil litigation case”. A Case Summary should be prepared in virtually every Multi Track case. Very little is written about it. THE RULES…
WHY DEFENDANTS HAVE TO KNOW THE RULES ABOUT SERVICE AND JURISDICTION AND ACT PROMPTLY: YOU’LL FIND YOURSELVES MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
The judgment today in Babcock Marine (Clyde) Ltd v HS Barrier Coatings Ltd [2019] EWHC 1659 (TCC) highlights the need for defendants to be prompt if they are making an application in relation to service or jurisdiction. CPR 11 gives…
BENCH WARRANT ISSUED IN CIVIL ACTION: WARRANT ISSUED TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S ATTENDANCE AT A HEARING
In Hanson & Ors v Carlino & Anor [2019] EWHC 1366 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss issued a bench warrant to ensure a defendant’s attendance at a hearing. The defendant had a history of non-compliance and attempts to avoid the…
MAKING APPLICATIONS IN ADVANCE OF A BREACH: WHY A STITCH IN TIME OFTEN, BUT NOT INVARIABLY, SAVES AN APPLICANT
The post earlier today about the decision in Bedzhamov & Ors Re Vneshprombank LLC [2019] EWHC 1430 (Ch) was an example of the court refusing an application for an extension of time made in advance of the date of breach. The…
PROVING THINGS 155: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT GOES WRONG: HOTEL PROPRIETOR NOT LIABLE TO GUEST FOR ASSAULT BY TRESPASSER
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1593 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans found that proprietors of a hotel had not been in breach of duty when some of their guests had been assaulted by a…
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
NB THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE THE MOTOR INSURERS (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 2022 In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of Mr Justice Soole that…
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…
DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL
The Immigration Upper Tribunal does not appear to recognise some of the basic principles of civil evidence and appellate jurisdiction. Certainly this is the impression you get when reading the judgment of Lord Justice Davis in Palash v Secretary of…
ALLOCATION TO LEVEL OF JUDGE : “FAME” DOESN’T MATTER – THE TIME IT WILL TAKE TO OBTAIN A HEARING DOES
In Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh held that the time it would take to obtain a hearing date is a factor in relation to which judge the matter would be allocated to. The Master also…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW
In a discussion about the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on Twitter today someone asked if “Notices to Admit Facts” were still available, they had not seen one for a long time. The rules still permit parties to…
tWENTY YEARS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES: ALL THAT TIME AND THEY HAVE MADE FEW FRIENDS
I have already done a post on the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on the 26th April. In an effort to find supporters I tried again. The Civil Procedure Rules, it appears, has very few friends… …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different. There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…
A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE
Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously acting for…
WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: THE DUTY OF FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE – A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT
There is an interesting discussion of the duty to give full and fair disclosure in the judgment of HHJ Klein (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3163 (Ch). …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”
In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of “litigation wishful thinking”. Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…
FIXED COSTS, CASES OVER £25,000, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BASKET OF CASES
In Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB)Mr Justice Stewart considered the relevant criteria to be applied when a claimant argued that fixed costs should not be applied to a case that had started in the portal but was settled…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…
FIXED COSTS WHEN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SETTLES FOR MORE THAN £25,000: “NEW RULES” TO BE APPLIED AND FIXED COSTS APPLY
I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sephton QC in Lovatt -v- Lew Diecastings Ltd (County Court in Manchester, 4th December 2018). Lovatt v LEW Diecastings Ltd…
You must be logged in to post a comment.