ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR’S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE – THREE TIMES
In Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2347 the Court of Appeal turned down the claimant’s appeal. The claimant had been unsuccessful in an action for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. He was equally unsuccessful on appeal….
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): “LATE EVIDENCE” SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE
In the judgment today in The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) & Ors v CD [2018] EWCA Civ 2342 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a claimant being successful in a Section 33 application. There is an…
NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION
In SJ Moore (Jeweller) Limited -v- Squibb Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2731 (QB) Denton principles were considered and applied when the defendant wanted to adduce new evidence. What is notable here is the fact that the defendant had the expert…
A CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: GOOD NEWS FOR CLAIMANTS: STAY A WHILE AND FIND OUT
In the judgment today in Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 the Court of Appeal held that an order staying an action also imposed a stay on the obligation to serve the claim form. The claim form was…
AGGRESSIVE LITIGATION IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE: JUDGE REFUSES DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT WITNESS STATEMENTS (WITH A COMMENT, OR TWO, AMONG THE WAY)
I am grateful to barrister Adam Heppinstall for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser today in Bates -v- The Post Office [2018] EWHC 2968 (QB). This is a forceful judgment and what the judge had…
“RECKLESS EXPERTS”: SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND
The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) was looked at earlier. It made the point that “reckless” reporting by experts can lead to experts being in contempt of court. This led me to…
CONSTRUCTION OF A PART 36 OFFER: DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT IS A PLOT TOO FAR
In Bentley Design Consultants Ltd v Sansom [2018] EWHC 2238 (TCC) Mrs Justice Jefford DBE considered a novel point on the construction of a Part 36 offer. She held that a Part 36 offer made by a claimant could not be…
WHEN WITNESSES DO NOT ATTEND TRIAL 1: WITNESS EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: A BROKEN FINGER IS NOT A GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO ATTEND COURT
This is the first of two posts today in relation to witnesses not attending to be cross-examined. In EC Medica Group UK Ltd & Ors v Dearnley-Davison & Ors [2018] EWHC 1952 (Ch) Kelyn Bacon QC (sitting as a Deputy High…
AVOIDING PROCEDURAL PITFALLS – AND PUTTING THEM RIGHT: WEBINAR 6th DECEMBER 2018: HELPING LITIGATORS SLEEP SOUNDLY AT NIGHT…
On the 6th December I am presenting a webinar “Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls and Putting Them Right”. The aim is to look at the key problem areas of civil procedure, how to avoid problems and how to rectify problems if things…
YOU’RE FIRED: A LITIGATION LAWYER ON THE APPRENTICE 2: TRICKY CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES: OUR LAWYERS SURVIVE
I am glad to report that both lawyer and law student survived the first round of the Apprentice. They were not, it has to be said, not at the forefront of the programme. There was no sign of “laying down…
THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS AN EMANATION OF THE STATE: IT IS LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY CLAIMANT INJURED BY AN “OFF ROAD” VEHICLE
I am grateful to David Gauler of Thompsons, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Soole in Lewis -v- Tinsdale & the Motor Insurers Bureau [2018] EWHC 2376 (QB), a copy of which is available…
BACK TO BASICS 16: COSTS BUDGETING: THE GUIDANCE NOTES ON PRECEDENT H
There is much written about the process of costs budgeting. There is much to be said, when preparing for a hearing – and often at the hearing itself, looking at the Practice Direction and Guidance Notes. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The…
ADVISING ON LITIGATION RISKS 1: YOU CAN BE BELIEVED AS A WITNESS AND STILL LOSE YOUR CASE
Earlier posts have looked at the concept of “litigation risks”. This is something we are all aware of as practising lawyers. We advise on those risks on a daily basis. However very little is written about this. This is the…
WHY SOLICITORS’ ATTENDANCE NOTES CAN BE IMPORTANT: CONSTRUING A CONSENT ORDER: DICTIONARIES AND REASONABLENESS
In Hague v British Telcommunications Plc (Immunotherapy : Reasonableness of Treatment : Private Dictionary Principle) [2018] EWHC 2227 (QB) Master Thornett had to construe the terms of a consent order. It is a case that emphasises the importance of attendance notes. …
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.