Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Conduct » Page 6
COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH

COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH

September 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB) Master Thornett revisited the principles considered in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) It was held that the claimant’s unrealistic figures in a costs budget should lead to the claimant paying…

COST BITES 180: EXCESSIVE BUDGET LEADS TO PARTY BEING ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING

August 28, 2024 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) Master Thornett awarded costs against a party who, the Master felt, had over-inflated their costs budget.   The case stands as a warning that a party putting forward a budget which is…

COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)

COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)

August 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] EWHC 2025 (TCC) Mr Justice Constable found that a “successful” claimant who had recovered nearly £3.7 million in damages should only recover 20% of its costs.  Both parties had…

NON-COMPLIANT WITNESS STATEMENTS (AGAIN): THE SOLICITOR'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WAS "FALSE":

NON-COMPLIANT WITNESS STATEMENTS (AGAIN): THE SOLICITOR’S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WAS “FALSE”:

August 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

For the third time this week I find myself writing about judicial criticisms of the way in which witness statements have been prepared.  This case has by far the most excoriating comments. In Fulstow & Anor v Francis [2024] EWHC…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC "MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH THAN THE OBSERVANCE": AND THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES

WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC “MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH THAN THE OBSERVANCE”: AND THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES

August 12, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

In  KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2024] EWHC 2098 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) observed that the requirements for drafting witness statements in PD57AC were “more honoured in the breach than…

SELF PROTECTION FOR LITIGATION LAWYERS - A RECAP: WITNESS STATEMENTS UNDER SCRUTINY

SELF PROTECTION FOR LITIGATION LAWYERS – A RECAP: WITNESS STATEMENTS UNDER SCRUTINY

August 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

A report in Litigation Futures in August 2016 illustrates the need for “self protection” by lawyers in . The headline says it all “Insurance Fraudster who tried to blame his solicitor jailed for 18 months”.   “IT WAS ALL MY…

COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: "HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS"

COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: “HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS”

July 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch).  The judge rejected an argument that a different order for costs should be made because the respondent/clamant…

COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS

COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS

July 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill rejected an argument that a claimant, whose case had been struck out due to non compliance with a peremptory order, should then not be liable to pay…

"UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE" NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: "IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO"

“UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE” NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: “IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO”

July 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The post earlier this morning on “intemperate” comments in court documents and correspondence reminded me that I meant to highlight a particular aspect of the  judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB).   The judgment highlights that unnecessarily argumentative…

WRITING INFLAMMATORY THINGS IN COURT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: IT NEVER, EVER, HELPS

WRITING INFLAMMATORY THINGS IN COURT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: IT NEVER, EVER, HELPS

July 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We are looking at the judgment of HHJ Edward Hess in  TM v KM [2022] EWFC 155 for two reasons: firstly the costs involved; secondly the judge’s observations about the unattractiveness of putting personal pejorative remarks in court documents.   There…

COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT'S COSTS:  A POINT OR TWO ABOUT "CLIENT'S" SUBMISSIONS

COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT’S COSTS: A POINT OR TWO ABOUT “CLIENT’S” SUBMISSIONS

July 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In  McAteer v Hat & Mitre & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1746 (Ch) Sir Anthony Mann (sitting as a High Court Judge) dismissed the unsuccessful appellant’s application that the respondent’s costs be reduced.  There were also some important…

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

May 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC) Mr Simon Lofthouse K.C., sitting as a High Court Judge, considered the issues that arose when a party had tried to influence…

MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

May 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to both Kevin Latham and Andrew Buchan for pointing out the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thakkar & Ors v Mican & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 552. The court held that a judge had acted…

REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024

REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024

May 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Webinar

A costs order against your client is always a painful event.  This webinar looks at the best and safest means of litigating to avoid costs orders against a claimant. It covers areas relating to extensions of time, relief from sanctions…

SILENCE IN THE FACE OF AN OFFER TO MEDIATE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON COSTS: ONCE AN OFFER TO MEDIATE IS MADE THE BALL IS IN THE RECIPIENT'S COURT

SILENCE IN THE FACE OF AN OFFER TO MEDIATE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON COSTS: ONCE AN OFFER TO MEDIATE IS MADE THE BALL IS IN THE RECIPIENT’S COURT

May 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

In Northamber PLC v Genee World Ltd & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 428 the Court of Appeal reiterated certain key points about a party refusing to mediate. Silence in the face of an offer to mediate can have an…

COST BITES 147: WHO IS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY? WHAT SUMS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR LOSING ON CERTAIN POINTS?  DOES A CALDERBANK OFFER MATTER?

COST BITES 147: WHO IS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY? WHAT SUMS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR LOSING ON CERTAIN POINTS? DOES A CALDERBANK OFFER MATTER?

April 17, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Ltd [2024] EWHC 842 (Ch) Mr Justice Rajah determined issues relating to the costs of an action where the defendant had been largely successful.  A Calderbank offer from the Defendant,…

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE...): A REPEAT

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…): A REPEAT

April 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Members Content

Recent social media interest in a post I first wrote in April 2017 has led me to repeat it. The post concerned an aspect the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that did not made the…

COST BITES 139: A CLAIMANT WAS NOT AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN SOLICITORS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU  BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

COST BITES 139: A CLAIMANT WAS NOT AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN SOLICITORS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

March 27, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, Wasted Costs

The judgment of Deputy Master Grimshaw in  Al Tarboush v Cassam [2024] EWHC 639 (KB) shows two things: (i) the limitations of the wasted costs procedure; (ii) the major procedural problems that can arise in the course of a case…

COST BITES 137: WASTED COSTS ORDER WAS APPROPRIATE: APPEAL DISMISSED: SOME NOTES ON PROCEDURE

March 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are looking again (and not for the last time) at the judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Rainer Hughes Solicitors v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 585 (KB).   The decision to make a wasted costs…

THE VEXED QUESTION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE MAKER CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: LEADS TO MAJOR PROBLEMS AND A WASTED COSTS ORDER

THE VEXED QUESTION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE MAKER CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: LEADS TO MAJOR PROBLEMS AND A WASTED COSTS ORDER

March 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

We are going to be looking twice at the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Rainer Hughes Solicitors v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 585 (KB). The next post will look at procedure in…

"EYE ROLLING, HEAD SHAKING, GRUNTING, SNICKERING, GUFFAWING AND LOUD MUTTERING": HARDLY THE STUFF OF GOOD ADVOCACY

“EYE ROLLING, HEAD SHAKING, GRUNTING, SNICKERING, GUFFAWING AND LOUD MUTTERING”: HARDLY THE STUFF OF GOOD ADVOCACY

March 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Conduct, Members Content

In China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v Novalex Inc., 2024 ONSC 608 (CanLII), C. Chang.J, made some trenchant observations about the conduct of one of the advocates in the case. “It has long been a tradition and requirement of etiquette…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION: LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

THE DANGERS OF SERVING A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION: LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

February 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Another aspect of the judgment in Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) was the defendant’s conduct in serving a notice of non-admission.  Service of the notice led to considerable extra costs being incurred. …

PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT

PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT

February 14, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some complex costs orders in relation to the litigation.  However the fundamental point was that parties that the claimants that failed…

A DEFENDANT CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEBARRING ORDER: AN APPLICATION SOUNDLY REFUSED

A DEFENDANT CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEBARRING ORDER: AN APPLICATION SOUNDLY REFUSED

January 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

In Al Saud v Gibbs [2024] EWHC 123 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver refused a defendant’s application to set aside a debarring order so that they could be involved in the trial of the action.  The judgment contains important observations on…

“AN EXPERT WITNESS IS NOT HELPING THE COURT BY TRYING TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS”: JUDGE FINDS EXPERT “UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNACCEPTABLE”

January 17, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In LCC v V & B [2023] EWFC 268 HHJ Booth commented on one of the expert witnesses.  He found that the evidence given involved conjecture.  The criticism of the expert is robust.   “An expert witness is not helping…

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 5: ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE COURT "IN TERROREM" WERE NOT WELCOME

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 5: ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE COURT “IN TERROREM” WERE NOT WELCOME

January 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

In March 2019 I wrote about the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB), the post noted that  “parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the…

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 3: THE POST OFFICE'S APPLICATION THAT THE JUDGE RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE HE WAS "BIASED" AGAINST THEM

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 3: THE POST OFFICE’S APPLICATION THAT THE JUDGE RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE HE WAS “BIASED” AGAINST THEM

January 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

The Post Office was so convinced of the righteousness of its case that it determined that any findings against it must be due to judicial bias.  Having lost  some applications before the trial judge it attempted to have the judge…

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE: LOOKING BACK TO THE CASE OF THE YEAR 2019

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE: LOOKING BACK TO THE CASE OF THE YEAR 2019

January 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Yesterday I noticed that a post I had written in 2019 was suddenly gaining a lot of readers.  I suspect that this was due to the power of television.  Not that the blog was being advertised, but that the series…

A CLAIMANT, ALLEGING FRAUD, IS NOT ENTITLED TO DELIBERATELY BREACH A COURT ORDER AND THE RULES OF COURT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT GIVES LITIGATORS MUCH TO THINK ABOUT

A CLAIMANT, ALLEGING FRAUD, IS NOT ENTITLED TO DELIBERATELY BREACH A COURT ORDER AND THE RULES OF COURT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT GIVES LITIGATORS MUCH TO THINK ABOUT

December 15, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

Those who draft pleadings, particularly those alleging fraud and misconduct, have much to learn from the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Kryeziu & Ors [2023] EWHC 3233 (KB). The fact that a party is…

A KNOTTY PROBLEM: CAN THE COURT STAY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER THE PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN ADR? YES IT CAN … BUT…

November 29, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

In Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 the Court of Appeal considered the question of whether the courts can stay an action to, effectively, compel the parties to engage in ADR.  It was held that…

COST BITES 124 : EARLY VIEW AS TO VALUE OF A PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS NOT  UNREASONABLE: DEFENDANT'S APPEAL DISMISSED

COST BITES 124 : EARLY VIEW AS TO VALUE OF A PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS NOT UNREASONABLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED

November 27, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sadiq in Drury -v- Yorkshire Aggregates Limited (a decision made in January this year, but the transcript has only just become available).  It…

COST BITES 123: COSTS OF BUDGETING REDUCED BY 25% TO REFLECT CLAIMANT'S UNREALISTIC BUDGET

COST BITES 123: COSTS OF BUDGETING REDUCED BY 25% TO REFLECT CLAIMANT’S UNREALISTIC BUDGET

November 23, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Reid v Wye Valley NHS Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 2843 (KB) Master Brown reduced the recoverable costs of budgeting by 25% to reflect the unrealistic nature of the claimant’s budget.  There are important issues here for those who…

COST BITES 122: THE APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN BOTH SIDES "WIN" AND BOTH SIDES "LOSE": THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COSTS BUDGET

COST BITES 122: THE APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN BOTH SIDES “WIN” AND BOTH SIDES “LOSE”: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COSTS BUDGET

November 21, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We are returning to an examination of costs orders made and their practical implications for the client.  In Aymes International Ltd v Nutrition4u BV & Ors [2023] EWHC 2672 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered…

DOES WHAT YOU WEAR MATTER? GUIDANCE FOR ADVOCATES AND LITIGANTS: ANOTHER ISSUE REVISITED

November 14, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

This is a part of the series revisiting previous posts. Here we go back to November 2018.  The question was asked – does how you dress affect how you are perceived?  This followed a  tweet (from the USA) where a …

COST BITES 112: SOLICITORS BILL ASSESSED AT "NIL": THE OMBUDSMAN'S INFORMAL RESOLUTION IS BINDING ON A SOLICITOR:  PERMISSION WAS NEEDED TO REVISE THE BILL AND WOULD NEVER BE GIVEN

COST BITES 112: SOLICITORS BILL ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THE OMBUDSMAN’S INFORMAL RESOLUTION IS BINDING ON A SOLICITOR: PERMISSION WAS NEEDED TO REVISE THE BILL AND WOULD NEVER BE GIVEN

November 6, 2023 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In  Olukoya v Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWHC 2771 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard assessed a solicitor’s bill as nil. The judge found that there was a binding contractual agreement  as to the sums payable by the client following an informal…

COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR

COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR

October 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Freedman in The Scout Association -v- Bolt Burdon Kemp [2023] EWHC 2575 (KB). On appeal Freedman J upheld the…

PART 36 APPLIES TO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY: SILENCE DID NOT INDICATE A REFUSAL TO ENTER ADR: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLIED

PART 36 APPLIES TO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY: SILENCE DID NOT INDICATE A REFUSAL TO ENTER ADR: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLIED

September 12, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Jones v Tracey & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2256 (Ch) Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) found that Part 36 applied to cases that were not about money.  It was held that the fact that the action would be…

RUDE OR "ROBUST" CORRESPONDENCE? GUIDANCE ON AVOIDING INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE OR BEING GRATUIOUSLY OFFENSIVE

RUDE OR “ROBUST” CORRESPONDENCE? GUIDANCE ON AVOIDING INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE OR BEING GRATUIOUSLY OFFENSIVE

August 10, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content

This is a repeat of a post first written in August 2017. At that time the Solicitors Regulatory Authority had just issued  on “Offensive communications”  (the link is to an updated version from 2019). It gave me a chance to…

SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: "PART OF THE POINT OF THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 IS TO PREVENT THE SORT OF COSTS ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE MADE"

SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: “PART OF THE POINT OF THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 IS TO PREVENT THE SORT OF COSTS ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE MADE”

July 7, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Green v White Lantern Film (Britannica) Ltd [2023] EWHC 1391 (Ch) Mr Justice Michael Green considered arguments as to conducts and costs in a case where the claimant had beaten her own Part 36 offer.  The normal Part 36…

CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WAS FOR 96% OF THE CLAIM: IT WAS HELD UNJUST FOR NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY

June 21, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In  Yieldpoint Stable Value Fund, LP v Kimura Commodity Trade Finance Fund Ltd [2023] EWHC 1512 (Comm) Stephen Houseman KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that it was not unjust to disallow the normal Part 36 consequences in…

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

May 22, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

A new edition of the King’s Bench Division Guide was published last week (although it is dated March 2023).  I will take a short look at the major changes. Firstly looking at a new passage in relation to the instruction…

COSTS BITES 80: WHERE THE BILL OF COSTS WAS FOR IMAGINARY WORK AND "JUST FICTION": ASSESSMENT SHINES A CLEAR LIGHT OF DEFICIENCES IN BILLS: AT SUBSTANTIAL COST TO THE CLAIMANTS' SOLICITOR

COSTS BITES 80: WHERE THE BILL OF COSTS WAS FOR IMAGINARY WORK AND “JUST FICTION”: ASSESSMENT SHINES A CLEAR LIGHT OF DEFICIENCES IN BILLS: AT SUBSTANTIAL COST TO THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITOR

May 11, 2023 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized, Wasted Costs

The judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Ikin -v- Shawbrook Bank Limited [2023] EWHC 1075 (SCCO) contains many, many lessons of importance for those drafting and those signing bills of costs.  The judge found that there were manifold failures…

COST BITES 76: COURT DID NOT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST HEALTH AUTHORITY IN A WELFARE CASE: THERE ARE OTHER WAYS A COURT CAN SHOW ITS DISAPPROVAL OF A PARTY'S CONDUCT OF A CASE

COST BITES 76: COURT DID NOT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST HEALTH AUTHORITY IN A WELFARE CASE: THERE ARE OTHER WAYS A COURT CAN SHOW ITS DISAPPROVAL OF A PARTY’S CONDUCT OF A CASE

April 18, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust v AX (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 11 Vikram Sachdeva KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for costs against a  health authority.  The judgment contains a review of the rules relating to…

COST BITES 75: LIABILITY TO COSTS: RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY COSTS BUDGET: WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER AFFECTS LIABILITY TO COSTS MADE PRIOR TO THAT OFFER

COST BITES 75: LIABILITY TO COSTS: RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY COSTS BUDGET: WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER AFFECTS LIABILITY TO COSTS MADE PRIOR TO THAT OFFER

April 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

 We looked at the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wigan Borough Council v Scullindale Global Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 779 (Ch) in an earlier post on Proving Things.  There is a subsequent…

COSTS BITES 73: IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION THE APPLICANTS FAILED TO GET PAST THE FIRST STAGE

COSTS BITES 73: IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION THE APPLICANTS FAILED TO GET PAST THE FIRST STAGE

March 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Wasted Costs

In  King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) Mr Justice Jacobs refused to allow a wasted costs application to pass stage one of the process. The issues were too complex and the costs to high, to…

PERSONAL PEJORATIVE REMARKS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS DO NOT HELP: RECENT DECISIONS AND A REVIEW OF THE CASES

PERSONAL PEJORATIVE REMARKS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS DO NOT HELP: RECENT DECISIONS AND A REVIEW OF THE CASES

March 16, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

Some recent comments by HHJ Edward Hess in TM -V- KM [2022] EWFC 155  as to the language used in witness statements gives me a chance to reprise the guidance as to the lack of wisdom of  using intemperate language…

WHEN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU NEVER THOUGHT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC - GET SEEN: LAWYER'S TALES: "CHURN THAT BILL BABY"

WHEN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU NEVER THOUGHT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC – GET SEEN: LAWYER’S TALES: “CHURN THAT BILL BABY”

March 5, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

Recent events have shown that even the most prominent people in public office can put material on social media sites that they assume will never be seen, and come to regret it.  However politicians are not the only ones.  This…

APPLICATION FOR NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER DISMISSED: THIS TIGER HAD NO TEETH...

APPLICATION FOR NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER DISMISSED: THIS TIGER HAD NO TEETH…

February 20, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

There have been a number of cases relating to non-party costs orders. The claimant’s application for such an order failed in  Paper Mache Tiger Ltd v Lee Mathews Workroom PTY Ltd [2023] EWHC 338 (Comm). John Kimbell KC, sitting as…

THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED A BIT TOO MUCH... COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT

THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED A BIT TOO MUCH… COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT

February 15, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

In Keane v Sargen & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 141 the Court of Appeal commented that interruptions of the cross examination of a witness by the trial judge had not been helpful and, indeed, inappropriate. “I add a few words…

COST BITES 59: COSTS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL: HOWEVER THE JUDGE FELT TOTALLY UNABLE TO RELY ON A COSTS SCHEDULE

COST BITES 59: COSTS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL: HOWEVER THE JUDGE FELT TOTALLY UNABLE TO RELY ON A COSTS SCHEDULE

February 15, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Another example of costs not following the event can be seen in the judgment of Mrs Justice Smith in The Financial Conduct Authority v Papadimitrakopoulos & Anor [2022] EWHC 3048 (Ch).   The judgment also raises other issues in relation to…

← Previous 1 … 5 6 7 … 12 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A PARTY CANNOT ADVANCE ONE CASE IN ONE SET OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE OPPOSITE CASE IN ANOTHER: ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT LEADS TO A COUNTERCLAIM BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
  • COST BITES 426: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK SHOULD PAY COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUING: “THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK IS DESIGNED TO BE DIFFERENT”
  • COST BITES 425: THE EAT OVERTURNS AN ORDER “ASSESSING” COSTS: THE ET APPLIED THE WRONG TEST IN RELATION TO THE CLAIANT’S MEANS, AND THEN FAILED TO SHOW IT HAD ASSESSED THE COSTS SCHEDULE AT ALL..
  • SHOULD UNDUE DELAY AND “GROVIT” ABUSE LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT UNLESS THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS NO TO DO SO? THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDER THE ISSUES
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE IN AN APPEAL BUNDLE? A JUDGMENT ON THAT VERY POINT:”DOCUMENTS GENUINELY REQUIRED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL”

Top Posts

COST BITES 419: HOW CLAIMING COUNSEL'S FEES ON AN N260 CAN LEAD TO REFERRAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED: SIGNATORY BEWARE
COST BITES 423: THE JUDGE'S EYEBROWS ARE RAISED AT AN ADDITIONAL £2,500 BECAUSE THE KC HAS TO STAY FOR THE AFTERNOON...
COST BITES 421 : THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE IS BACK IN COURT: CLAIMANT'S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT OF A CASE WHERE HE LOST "ON EVERY MATERIAL POINT OF FACT AND LAW" LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
MAZUR MATTERS 66: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD FINAL REPORT ON MAZUR: "REGULATORY REVIEW OF ADVICE AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE PROFESSION ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGAITON BY APPROVED REGULATORS AND REGULATORY BODIES"
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT: AN INTERESTING PRACTICE DIRECTION FROM THE HIGH COURT IN IRELAND : GOOD ADVICE FOR US ALL

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.