LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: COSTS REDUCED EVEN WHEN THEY WERE ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
There are two distinct issues arising from the judgment of HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies & Ors v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation [2021] EWHC 3509 (Comm). The first relates to the…
CLAIM FAILS WHEN CLAIMANT SERVES A FIRM OF SOLICITORS AT THE WRONG ADDRESS: COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND CLAIM FORM
In Kelly v Ralli Ltd [2022] EWHC B5 (Costs) Cost Judge Rowley found that a claimant had failed to serve a claim form at the correct address. The action therefore failed. “The rules governing service are clear that it is the…
LAWYERS AS SCHOOCHILDREN IN THE PLAYGROUND: BAD-TEMPERED LITIGATION: THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: THE TAIL TO AND NOT THE DOG ITSELF
In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2022] EWHC 242 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) made some trenchant observations in relation to arguments about costs on summary assessment. The criticisms of the way that litigation…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6th APRIL 2022 (5): THE “PERSON” WHO MAY NOT BE NAMED…
A minor amendment is being made to CPR Part 39. The amendment enables any person not to be named if the court thinks this necessary. The rule is no longer confined to a party or witness. Amendment of Part 39…
WHEN DOES A LITIGANT HAVE CAPACITY? AVOIDING CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS: THE NEED FOR LEGAL ADVICE IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR
There is an interesting discussion of capacity to litigate in the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan & Ors [2021] EWFC 6. It is also worth remarking on the judge’s comments on how the expert’s evidence in…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (4): CHANGES TO STATEMENT OF VALUE ON THE CLAIM FORM IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES
The new rules reflect the fact that the small claims limit for personal injury damages now requires a figure of £1,500 for pain and suffering, there are specific provisions in relation to road traffic accidents. The rules change the statement…
WHEN AN APPELLANT FAILS TO ATTEND THEIR APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: “PARTIES CANNOT SIMPLY FAIL TO SHOW UP FOR A HEARING…”
In Leave.EU Group Ltd & Anor v The Information Commissioner [2022] EWCA Civ 109 the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate step when an appellant failed to attend an appeal. The Master of the Rolls held that the Court had…
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE 2022: LINK AND BUNDLES
The new Queen’s Bench Division Guide was published yesterday and is available here. THE CHANGES “Changes in the guide include: Interim and out of hours applications Urgent and Short Applications before the Masters Electronic bundles The procedure for issuing…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (3): THESE RULES, THEY AREN’T “NEW” ANY MORE
One small change in the rules means that they have left their infancy and, presumably, having now graduated, are entering early adulthood. THE OLD RULE CPR 1.1(1) currently reads (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding…
OH WHY ED SHEERAN CAN’T USE A STAND IN: DISCLOSURE AND THE DUTY TO SEARCH: THE SHAPE OF THINGS
In Sheeran & Ors v Chokri & Ors [2021] EWHC 3553 (Ch) Mr Justice Meade set out some of the duties owed by a litigant in relation to the disclosure process. “… Mr Sheeran’s manager undertook the disclosure exercise on…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2022 (2): A BRAND NEW PART 12 ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT
From the 6th April 2022 onwards the existing rules in Part 12 are deleted and replaced with the new rules set out below. THE NEW PART 12 ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT The following rule totally substitutes the existing Part 12 from…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6th APRIL 2022 (1): ACKNOWLEDGING SERVICE AND THE NEW CPR PART 10
New rules are coming into force on the 6th April 2022. This is the first of a series of posts dealing with these changes. There is to be a totally new CPR Part 10, the old rule being replaced entirely…
SEEKING TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY, A FORMAL APPLICATION IS REQUIRED: OVERIDING OBJECTIVE LEADS TO REFUSAL
In JD Group Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 202 (Ch) Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello QC refused an application to adduce new evidence after a trial had ended, and judgment was pending. A formal application was required, Denton principles…
THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED
I am grateful to barrister Kriti Upadhyay for sending me copies of the judgment of Mrs Justice Foster in Greyson -v- Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB), a copy of which is available here Greyson v Fuller – HC Judgment 3-2-22…
“THERE IS A DANGER … THAT PROPORTIONATE ORDERS END UP UNDERMINING THE GENERAL RULE THAT COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT”: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT GETS 100% OF THEIR COSTS
In Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune Di Busto Arsizio [2022] EWHC 219 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill considered, and rejected, the defendant’s arguments that there should be a “proportionate” costs order. The judgment serves as a reminder of the basic…
“I FIND THAT THE CLAIM WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CLAIMANT’S LAWYERS ON A PREMISE WHICH WAS IRRELEVANT AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE OR THE LAW”: WHY MUCH MORE CARE IS NEEDED IN DRAFTING SCHEDULES
We are looking again at the decision in Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 197 (QB). This time at the judgment in relation to quantum. The case involved a situation where the claimant’s lawyers presentation of the case…
12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW: AN UPDATE
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 14 highlights the need for constant awareness of issues relating to service of the claim form. It is an area…
JUDGE GRANTS DEFENDANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO LATE FILING OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
In Cambpell v Chief Land Registrar [2022] EWHC 200 (Ch) HHJ Hodge (sitting as a judge of the High Court) granted the defendant relief from sanctions following its failure to acknowledge service in time. “it would be unjust if two…
HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL: “ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUALLY ENTITLED TO COME BEFORE THE COURTS IN CIVIL CLAIMS”
In Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 197 (QB) Mr Justice Ritchie overturned a trial judge’s findings of fundamental dishonesty. The fact that a claimant had lied about the cause of his injuries did not impact upon…
THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES AND PRE-LEGISLATIVE MATERIAL
In O (a minor), R (on the application of v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court considered the issue of statutory interpretation and the use of external material, in particular official material. There…
ACTION FOR DATA BREACH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE HIGH COURT: SMALL CLAIMS TRACK MOST PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE VENUE
In Stadler v Currys Group Ltd [2022] EWHC 160 (QB) HHJ Lewis (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) was critical of the claimant’s decision to issue proceedings for a data breach claim in the High Court. Such proceedings…
SECURITY FOR COSTS CANNOT BE GIVEN BY BITCOIN: HARD CASH RULES THE DAY
In Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) Master Clark rejected an application that security for costs be given by Bitcoin. The fluctuating values of Bitcoin would not provide the defendants…
PROVING THINGS 225: PROVING THAT A SIGNATURE WAS FORGED: DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS WERE NEVER SERVED
In Randhawa v Randhawa (Divorce: Decree Absolute, Set Aside, Forgery) [2021] EWFC B96 HHJ Moradifar found that a signature on an acknowledgment of service had been forged. Consequently the decree of divorce that followed was set aside. THE CASE The…
SUING YOUR LAWYER: SOLICITORS NOT NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PASS ON COUNSEL’S VIEWS OR ADVISE ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION
In Mervyn Lambert Plant Ltd & Anor v Knights Solicitors [2022] EWHC 165 (QB) Dan Squires QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, rejected the claimant’s argument that his former solicitors had been negligent in failing to inform him…
10 MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW
Here we look at ten “myths” (that is misconceptions) about limitation that can lead to personal injury litigators getting into difficulties. This is not the first time these issues have been examined on these blog. However these continue to be…
A FINAL COSTS CERTIFICATE IS ESSENTIAL FOR COSTS TO BECOME DUE: THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED OFF…
In Johnston -v- Wackett [2022] EWHC 129 (Ch) Deputy Master Brightwell considered the question of whether costs become payable when a final costs certificate is not obtained. “Even though most paying parties may in practice pay without the need…
THE DANGERS OF DISPUTING COSTS (IT COULD COST YOU OVER £240,000…)
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is also interesting reading in that it gives an insight into the assessment of costs in earlier proceedings. It highlights the dangers and costs of costs proceedings…
WITNESS EVIDENCE IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: CRUCIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT
It is surprising how many clinical negligence cases rest, ultimately, on findings of fact as to what was said. An example can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Watson v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust…
JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SENT TO THE NORTH: LOCAL COURTS ARE BEST…
In Fortt, R (On the Application Of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd [2022] EWHC 152 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham ordered that judicial review proceedings be sent to Manchester rather than heard in London. The judgment emphasises the importance of…
PUTTING A CAP ON THE COSTS OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT: AN UNHAPPY TALE WITH LESSONS TO BE LEARNT
For the second time today I am writing about a case concerning a jointly instructed expert. In Loggie v Loggie [2022] EWFC 2 Mr Justice Mostyn had to determine who should pay the costs of an expert whose final costs…
NO DUTY OF CARE OWED BY A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT (ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE): EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT BEING EXPERTS: MUCH TO READ HERE
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is essential reading for anyone who instructs experts in litigation. It is also essential reading for experts. The judge dismissed a claim in negligence against a…
PROVING THINGS 224: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: THE IMPORTANCE (& LIMITATIONS) OF THE CLAIMANT’S OWN EVIDENCE
The impairment of someone’s ability to earn their living is always a serious matter. There are a number of approaches that the court can take to the award of damages. Anyone representing a claimant should read McRae -v- Chase International…
COURT OF APPEAL ISSUE WARNING AGAINST EXCESSIVE COSTS (INCLUDING THE COSTS OF APPEALS)
In The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 the Court of Appeal were concerned about the costs involved in litigation on what were, essentially, preliminary issues. This included the…
CHANGES TO THE HIGHWAY CODE: WHERE TO FIND THEM AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO LAWYERS (APART FROM THE FACT THAT LAWYERS, WALK, DRIVE AND RIDE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?)
The Highway Code is changing on the 29th January 2022. This has some relevance to lawyers. Here we look at the importance of the Highway Code, the significant changes, with links as to where to find the new rules and…
THE PROFOUND DIFFICULTIES IN REHEARING AN APPLICATION WHERE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS REFUSED: AN “EXCEPTIONAL JURISDICTION”: NUMEROUS BITES OF THE CHERRY NOT EASILY ALLOWED
In Dal v Bicknell & Anor [2022] EWHC 120 (Ch) Mr Justice Edwin Johnson considered the circumstances in which a party, refused permission to appeal, could seek to re-open the decision to refuse permission. The cases in which that can…
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO AN IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AFTER A SPLIT TRIAL: HOWEVER THERE IS AN (8%) STING IN THE TAIL
The judgment of Costs Judge Leonard in ABA v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2022] EWHC B4 (Costs) highlights a point of costs and practice that is easily overlooked. A successful party who is awarded costs in a…
STATEMENTS OF CASE, DRAFTING, DANGERS AND PITFALLS 2022: FORTHCOMING WEBINAR
Recently we have looked at several cases where the importance of proper pleading was emphasises. For instance in Charles Russell Speechlys LLP v Beneficial House (Birmingham) Regeneration LLP [2021] EWHC 3458 (QB) the appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted…
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND: TOWER BLOCKS, FIRE SAFETY AND “FACTS” PLEADED IN THE DEFENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Mulalley & Co. Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 32 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a claimant, seeking to amend its Particulars of Claim by referring to matters pleaded in the defence, was pleading…
WHAT HAPPENS AT A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS OF A TRIAL? ALSO THE COSTS AND INTEREST THAT FOLLOWS A PART 36 OFFER
We have already looked at the judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 in relation to the construction of Part 36 offers. This was…
A PART 36 OFFER CANNOT BE REDUCED BECAUSE OF A DEDUCTIBLE: AN INSURER IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OFFER IT MADE
I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the decision in Denton -v- Ms Amlin Underwriting (County Court at Doncaster 6th August 2021). It relates to an insurer defendant attempting to deduct an excess figure…
THE NEED FOR VARIATION OF THE TONE OF CORRESPONDENCE IN LITIGATION: OUTRAGED OFFENCE AND BEING PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE IS USUALLY OFF KEY
I am grateful to solicitor Richard Harrison for allowing me to reproduce his post on “The importance of tone in litigation”. This blog has looked, many times, at judicial criticism of intemperate correspondence. Richard’s observations here will strike a chord…
PROVING THINGS 223: PROVING A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM (£1,206,053 TO BE EXACT)
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) awarded a claimant £1,206,053) in loss of earnings. The judge found that the approach in Smith -v- Manchester was not an…
PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL RECUSAL CONSIDERED: JUDGE DOES NOT RECALL MEETING A PARTY
There is an interesting issue in relation to recusal in the judgment of Mrs Justice Arbuthnot in Griffiths v Griffiths (Decision on Recusal) [2021] EWHC 3600 (Fam). THE CASE The judge was determining issues relating to access to children….
“DIVIDING THE BILL” WHEN TWO MATTERS PROCEEDED TOGETHER; THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION NEEDED ON COUNSEL’S FEE NOTES & HOURLY RATES: A LOT IN ONE CASE
In R v Barts Health NHS Trust [2022] EWHC B3 (Costs) Costs Judge Rowley considered a number of interesting issues relating to the problem of apportioning costs where two actions had been run alongside each other. There are interesting observations…
DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER
The previous post looked at the rejection of allegations of fundamental dishonesty in Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB). That judgment also contains some observations in relation to several of the medical experts called on behalf of the…
A CLAIMANT IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN THEY DON’T PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT ASKED FOR: JUDGMENT FOR £1,679,406 IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) rejected an argument that a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. Judgment was entered for £1,679.406 instead of a finding of…
PROVING THINGS 222: SPENDING £200,000 IN COSTS OVER 9 INCHES OF LAND: BEYOND THE JUDGE’S COMPREHENSION AS TO HOW THIS GOT SO EXPENSIVE
In Davis & Anor v Winner [2021] EW Misc 23 (CC) the parties between them appear to have spent over £200,000 in costs. This is a dispute over inches of land. It is not surprising that HHJ Mithani QC expressed…
A DEFENDANT MAKES A PART 36 OFFER BUT IT CAN BE A “CLAIMANT’S” PART 36 OFFER WITH ALL THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES: A CASE ABOUT MISSING CASES
The judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 (comm) contains a detailed consideration of several aspects of the law of costs. It is…
YOU CAN’T RAISE A TOTALLY NEW POINT ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL DOES NOT ALLOW A MAJOR CHANGE OF CASE
In London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2022] EWCA Civ 28 the Court of Appeal set out the difficulties for a party that wishes to take a fundamentally new or different point on appeal. This gives rise to major difficulties…
FAILING TO TAKE STEPS IN RELATION TO A VULNERABLE WITNESS RENDERED THE TRIAL UNFAIR: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In S (Vulnerable Party: Fairness Of Proceedings) [2022] EWCA Civ 8 the Court of Appeal set aside a judgment when the court had not appreciated that a key witness was a vulnerable witness and that steps needed to be taken…
You must be logged in to post a comment.