EXPERT WATCH 20: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE INSTRUCTIONS TO A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT
Here we are looking at a case where there was an issue as to the instructions given, or to be given, to a single joint expert. The judge set out the basis upon which such experts are instructed and the…
MAZUR MATTERS 20: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION? PLUS A SNIPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE
I am continuing with the Mazur series by looking at two more useful links from reputable sources. One, from the Bar Standards Board, on what is not the conduct of litigation the other the Law Society Practice Note on these…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 32: CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ARE NO PLACE TO TAKE A POINT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PLEADED AT ALL
Here we are looking at a case where there were manifold issues (“100s of allegations) and where evidence was given over several weeks. However the claimant attempted to raise a new, unpleaded, issue during closing submissions. As we shall see…
COST BITES 295 : PART 36 OFFER BEATEN: SHOULD THE AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS LEAD TO 100% OF THE BUDGET BEING ORDERED AS AN INTERIM PAYMENT?
There have been several cases recently where the court has considered the issues relating to awarding interim costs after a party has been successful at trial and beaten their own Part 36 offer. We look at another decision on this…
SHOULD A COURT STRIKE AN ACTION OUT AFTER A TRIAL WHEN THE CLAIMANTS’ CONDUCT HAS BEEN REALLY BAD? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION…
Here we are considering an unusual issue about an unusual case. At the end of the evidence the defendants made a submission that the action should be struck out because the claimants conduct had made a fair trial impossible. The…
MAZUR MATTERS 19: TWO USEFUL LINKS: THIS HAS CHANGED THE PROFESSION’S UNDERSTANDING NOT THE LAW: STEPS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
I am attempting to avoid the blog being solely about Mazur. However the fact is that the Mazur issues are the most widely read posts, many of the more mainstream issues having taken a backseat. Whilst there is some commentary…
MAZUR MATTERS 18: WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL MAZUR MAKE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS? HOW ABOUT – ABSOLUTELY NONE…
Much has been written about Mazur, this includes many “column inches” about the implications for inter parties and solicitor and own client costs. However there is some support for the proposition that the fact that an “unauthorised” litigator has not…
PART 36 CASE OF DAY (4): THE AMOUNT OF INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE?
It is now normal for a successful party to be awarded interim costs at the conclusion of a trial. Here there is consideration of some of the issues in relation to the making of such orders. In particular the court…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?
We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order. Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (2): SHOULD THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER APPLY? INTERESTING ISSUES OR ISSUES ON INTEREST?
We continue looking at a High Court decision with some interesting issues in relation to the making of Part 36 offers and the consequences for a party if the offer is not beaten. Here we look at the court’s considerations…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (1): WAS THE OFFER A VALID OFFER? TWO FIELDS, THREE TRACTORS AND £20,000 CAUSED A FURROW IN THE DEFENDANT’S BROWS
Here we are looking at an argument as to whether a Part 36 offer, slightly unusual in form, was a valid Part 36 offer. Later posts will examine many of the other issues relating to costs that were considered in…
MAZUR MATTERS 17: WHAT ABOUT COST LAWYERS? RE-VISITING OLD GROUND: A CASE THAT MAKES USEFUL READING
There are a number of issues that have come up in relation to the impact of the Mazur decision. One of those relates to the activities of cost lawyers. The case law and principles relating to this were considered in…
SOME MORE INFORMATION ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND PERRIN -v- WALSH: FURTHER STATEMENTS; WARNINGS TO THE EXPERTS AND COSTS
This case was covered in a previous post. There is a useful article on the case by the claimant’s counsel. This covers the orders made in relation to further evidence from the surveillance operatives, the warnings given to the medical…
SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY THE CLAIMANT’S COSTS WHEN IT RAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT AS TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY? A HIGH COURT DECISION
There has been much debate recently about whether assertions of fundamental dishonesty have been made too readily. This case makes it clear that there may be costs consequences for those who run such arguments but who do not succeed. This…
EXPERT WATCH 19: THE EXPERT WHO WAS “FIGHTING HIS CORNER RATHER THAN TAKING A DISPASSIONATE APPROACH TO THE ISSUES RAISED”
Here we look at the judge’s views as to the approach taken by experts in a clinical negligence case. The judge clearly preferred the approach of one expert to that of another. One expert was “fighting his corner” rather than…
MAZUR MATTERS 15: COULD BREACHES OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT? WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
I have gently, perhaps too gently, suggested that a great deal of what is being written and said about the impact of Mazur is “unhelpful”. Put more bluntly some of it is inaccurate and misleading. There is much “wishful thinking”…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 4: THE DANGERS OF PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT (LESSONS HERE FOR ALL LITIGATORS)
There have been several cases dealing with inadequate pleading in clinical negligence cases this year. Here we look at one of them. It is a case we have looked at already but I wanted to emphasise the point. Further this…
EXPERT WATCH 18: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S DRAFT REPORT – REFERRED TO IN DEFENCE AND THE REPORT OF ANOTHER EXPERT
Here we look at a claimant’s applications under CPR 31.14(1) and 35.10 to have sight of a draft expert report that the defendant had referred to in a defence and in the report of another expert. The judgment contains a…
SOME MORE ABOUT SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE: THOSE CARRYING OUT THE FILMING MUST NOT ATTEMPT TO USURP THE ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
We are looking again at the decision yesterday in relation to the conduct of surveillance evidence. Just to highlight two issues: (1) a camera operator should not try to usurp the functions of the judge. The practice of providing a…
MAZUR MATTERS 13: WHAT IS MEAN BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 4: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN “IN THE ROUND”
The decision Mazur continues to attract considerable comment, for good reason. Here we consider the question of how the courts approach the issue. (13 may be lucky for some. Just remember the court considers the position “in the round”). …
SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE UNDER SCRUTINY, ADMISSIBILITY AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED: “THE PROVIDING OF PATENTLY UNTRUE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE COURT, ENDORSED WITH STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, IS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO THE COURT”
This is the most serious criticism of surveillance operatives as I have seen. The judge found that the operatives, filming on behalf of a defendant for the purpose of litigation, had been “fundamental and repeated” errors. The operatives then put…
MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
We are continuing with the detailed look at the consequences of the Mazur case. Here we look at that part of a judgment where the court made clear findings as to what did not constitute the conduct of litigation. (Staying outside…
SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
Over the years many claimants have been “rescued” by a defendant’s failure to make a timely, or correct, application to dispute the jurisdiction when the claim form has been improperly served. The limits of the defendant’s obligations were considered by…
SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
Here we look at another case where a claimant has come to grief because of a failure to serve the claim form. The ingenious arguments that he should have relief from sanctions were successful at first instance, but were rejected…
MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2 (A) : WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Comment on the implications of the Mazur decision goes on unabated. Some of this is informed commentary, some it is definitely not. On this site we are going to continue the examination of the primary sources of assistance to litigators…
EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
It is rare for there to be a detailed consideration of the principles relating to whether expert evidence is necessary, admissible or desirable. There is a detailed consideration of the principles here, combined with some clear observations on the necessity…
MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
A person unlawfully “conducting” litigation can be imprisoned for up to two years, be fined and is also in contempt of court. This makes uncomfortable reading for many. However there is a statutory defence. There is useful case law…
THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Here we are considering a case that covers issues relating to clinical negligence, the drafting of pleadings and wasted costs. It gives much to think about, particularly for those bringing professional negligence actions. (Choose the right type of doctor before…
MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
We are continuing with a detailed examination of the cases and principles relating to what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. Here (with some major caveats in mind) we look at the Court of Appeal decision that has been…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE
Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid. The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…
MAZUR MATTERS 7: LINKS TO SOME USEFUL RESOURCES: SOME INTERESTING READING FOR THE WEEKEND…
I have just finished presenting a webinar on the Mazur decision. I have a distinct feeling that this will not be the last. It was the first time I can remember where the time spent on questions afterwards exceeded the…
“A KEY TASK OF LITIGATION ADVOCACY IS TO HELP THE COURT TO SEE THE WOOD SAID TO BE CONSTITUTED BY THE TREES”: OVERLENGTHY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: PERHAPS ADVOCATES SHOULD TURN OVER A NEW LEAF…
Here we look at judicial comments on the written submissions given after a lengthy trial. The judge’s concern was that their length hampered rather than helped their task. (One suspects it sapped a lot of enjoyment out of their task)…
PART 36: WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED AS TO INCREASED INTEREST WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN OFFER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
When a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer they are entitled to additional interest on damages from the “relevant period” (the date of expiry of the offer. Here we have a case where the factors that effect the rate…
MAZUR MATTERS 6: FURTHER GUIDANCE FROM CILEX: “FIRMS WILL NEED TO SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW”
CILEX have provided further guidance in a document produced yesterday “CILEx Regulation – Interim Guidance The conduct of litigation and supervision”. (It may not be too late to register for the webinar on this topic today at 12.00 – details…
PROVING THINGS 271: “THAT IS SIMPLY NOT AN ADEQUATE WAY OF ADVANCING A CLAIM FOR £8 MILLION”:
We are looking at a case that shows that both sides can fail to prove things. Here we have a claimant who failed to prove a claim for £8 million. On any view this was quite a significant omission. (No evidence…
PROVING THINGS 270: DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE A FAILURE TO MITIGATE LOSS: NO MARKET FOR REJECTED HOSPITAL GOWNS
The burden of proving a failure to mitigate loss lies on the party alleging it. It is a case that has to be pleaded. Once pleaded then the case has to be proven. Here we look at a case where…
MAZUR MATTERS 5: THE SRA STATEMENT: “WE KNEW THE LAW ALL ALONG” (WITH NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THEY GOT IT WRONG)
Along with the reminder that the webinar on Mazur is on Friday 3rd October (details available here) it is notable that SRA issued a statement on Mazur yesterday. The full text of which is below. There is no hint of…
MAZUR MATTERS 4: DOES MAZUR COVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS? THREE CASES THAT CONSIDER THE ISSUE
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Here we consider the issue relating to…
EXPERT WATCH 16: IS PART 35 PERMISSION NEEDED WHEN A DOCTOR GIVES OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO A PARTY’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION?
Here we look at a case where a party was seeking a stay of litigation on medical grounds. Medical evidence was provided which supported the litigant’s stance. The claimant took objection to the report as it contained “opinion” and the…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: HOW NUMEROUS SMALL REPETITIONS, AND UNEVIDENCED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CASE
Here we are looking at a judgment in a group litigation claim where the judge had to assess the evidence of numerous witnesses. The feature I want to look at is the way in which claims for damages were put…
MAZUR MATTERS 3: CILEX MEMBERS – THE REAL VICTIMS OF ALL THIS: WHAT CILEX MEMBERS CAN DO ABOUT THIS
If any members of the profession are entitled to be disgruntled (to put it mildly) about the decision in Mazur it is CILEX members who conduct litigation. They have hard earned qualifications and extensive experience. However, unless they come within…
COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at an attempt by a paying party defendant to raise issues of conduct, including potential fundamental dishonesty, at the assessment of costs stage. The defendant argued (or attempted to argue) that the costs judge should take…
COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT
The periodical reminder that this series is aimed at looking at what goes on “on the ground” in the world of costs, in addition to looking at important developments in case law. It is to allow litigators to gain “a…
MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). One interesting aspect of the case is…
EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT
We are looking at a case where expert evidence was of considerable importance. The claimants had already had permission to rely upon one of their experts disallowed because of issues relating to conduct. Here we have an example of the…
PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A “BLIND EYE” ENOUGH?
This is an important and interesting case about findings of dishonesty on the part of a practising solicitor in their failure to make relevant checks on the background of their client. It was not suggested that the solicitor was aware…
MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA “HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE”)
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). However it is clear that it…
WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN “ISSUED” ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT’S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)
I have written before about the “heavy lifting” that sometimes takes place when practitioners attempt to invoke CPR 3.10. Here we look at a case where CPR 3.10 was used to condemn a claimant who had used the wrong procedure…
EXPERT WATCH 14: THERE WERE “TOO MANY IMPONDERABLES” TO FORM A VIEW THAT THE INJURIES WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED IF A CAR HAD BEEN DRIVEN AT A LOWER SPEED
The judge in this case considered whether the medical evidence established that driving at a lower speed would have “significantly reduced” the injuries that the claimant suffered. This is often a difficult matter to prove. (The evidence on whether…
You must be logged in to post a comment.