Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Professional negligence,

PROVING THINGS 230: NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH MUST STILL BE PROVEN WHEN BRINGING CONTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS

May 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Professional negligence,

In  Percy v White & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 493 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision based on a contribution notice. This case makes it clear that a party bringing contribution proceedings still has to establish breach and causation…

SUING YOUR LAWYER: SOLICITORS NOT NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PASS ON COUNSEL'S VIEWS OR ADVISE ON  THE RISKS OF LITIGATION

SUING YOUR LAWYER: SOLICITORS NOT NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PASS ON COUNSEL’S VIEWS OR ADVISE ON THE RISKS OF LITIGATION

January 31, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Professional negligence,

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…

THAT CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT'S LAWYERS FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM PROPERLY (THE SECOND TIME AGAINST THE SOLICITORS WHO WERE NEGLIGENT ON THE FIRST OCCASION)

THAT CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT’S LAWYERS FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM PROPERLY (THE SECOND TIME AGAINST THE SOLICITORS WHO WERE NEGLIGENT ON THE FIRST OCCASION)

September 1, 2021 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Professional negligence,, Service of the claim form, Webinar

If ever a case illustrated the dangers of not appreciating the rules as to service of the claim form.  Dzekova -v- Thomas Eggar LLP [2015] EWHC 2600 (QB) which we have looked  briefly before.   It reveals a sorry tale of…

SOLICITORS AND FUNDERS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THEIR AGREEMENT: FORMER CLIENTS LIABLE TO PAY COSTS: WHEN LITIGATION GOES AWRY

SOLICITORS AND FUNDERS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THEIR AGREEMENT: FORMER CLIENTS LIABLE TO PAY COSTS: WHEN LITIGATION GOES AWRY

August 13, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conditional Fee Agreements, Professional negligence,

The judgment of HHJ Cadwallader in Escalate Law Ltd & Anor v Kennedy & Anor [2021] EWHC 2232 (Ch) is an example of legal funders and solicitors falling out with their clients.  The  judge upheld the decision to withdraw from…

PROVING THINGS 209: SOLICITORS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LOSS: THE CLAIMED JEWEL WAS BIGGER THAN THE SOCKET

PROVING THINGS 209: SOLICITORS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LOSS: THE CLAIMED JEWEL WAS BIGGER THAN THE SOCKET

April 15, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Damages, Professional negligence,

In Kingsley Napley LLP v Harris & Anor [2021] EWHC 901 (QB) Margaret Obi, sitting as a high court judge dismissed a claim for professional negligence on the basis that there had not been any loss.  There are important lessons…

A BARRISTER OF “GOOD JUDGEMENT”: WHEN THE PERSON WHO USUALLY DOES THE CROSS-EXAMINING IS IN THE WITNESS BOX

December 1, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Torrance v Bradberry [2020] EWHC 3260 (QB) is one that should be read by every practising lawyer. It is a case of a lawyer as defendant, being accused of negligence in their conduct…

LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO THE OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION TO PUT FORWARD YOUR BEST EVIDENCE

LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO THE OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION TO PUT FORWARD YOUR BEST EVIDENCE

December 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Parties to actions, Professional negligence,

The Court of Appeal judgment this morning in  Revenue And Customs v Charles (t/a Boston Computer Group Europe) [2019] EWCA Civ 2176 contains some important observations in relation to the duties that litigating parties owe to each other.   “If…

STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 5: THINGS WILL GO WRONG: "YOU GOTTA HAVE A PLAN": DON'T CRASH...

STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 5: THINGS WILL GO WRONG: “YOU GOTTA HAVE A PLAN”: DON’T CRASH…

October 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Professional negligence,, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Setting aside judgment, Witness statements

No matter how hard you try, on occasions, things will go wrong in litigation.  Do you have a plan?  Here we examine the need to have a plan to cover default and other issues in litigation. We then look in…

PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE

PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE

June 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Professional negligence,

In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB)  Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case.  Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE "BIASED"...

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…

May 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case.  There are a number of lessons…

PROVING THINGS 147: CLAIM FOR NOT PURSUING NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS LEADS TO  NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY: NO DAMAGES FOR "LOSS OF CHANCE"

PROVING THINGS 147: CLAIM FOR NOT PURSUING NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS LEADS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY: NO DAMAGES FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE”

April 26, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

The judgment in Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce also contains yet another example of  claimants failing to prove any loss at trial. There was no evidence to support any claim for…

LIABILITY OF McKENZIE FRIEND: EXCLUSIVE NOTE OF JUDGMENT:

March 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Personal Injury, Professional negligence,

There was considerable discussion yesterday about the decision of HHJ Eady (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wright -v-Troy Lucas. My colleague Colm Nugent has been kind enough to send me  a note of the judgment (where he appeared…

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court restored the decision of the trial judge in relation to damages. One of the key issues was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge’s factual…

5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 3: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

June 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Professional negligence,

This is the third post that looks back at series of posts over the past five years. The series on avoiding negligence claims was written at the end of 2013. The emphasis was on avoiding negligence claims, particularly for personal injury…

PROVING THINGS 110:  ASSESSING DAMAGES: "BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES": PROVING  AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

PROVING THINGS 110: ASSESSING DAMAGES: “BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES”: PROVING AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

June 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Professional negligence,

In Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm) [2018] EWCA Civ 1299 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that the claimant had not established causation for damages  in a professional negligence action. When assessing damages the court should begin…

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS

February 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Professional negligence,, Summary judgment

I am grateful to my colleague at Hardwicke, Laurence Page, for sending me a transcript of the judgment of District Judge Langley in the case of Wright -v- Rix & Kay Solicitors, Central London County Court, 30/11/2017 (available here Wrighttranscript)….

THE DANGER OF ISSUING UNDER PART 8 AND THEN DOING VERY LITTLE: COURT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO LIFT STAY: ACTION STRUCK OUT

THE DANGER OF ISSUING UNDER PART 8 AND THEN DOING VERY LITTLE: COURT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO LIFT STAY: ACTION STRUCK OUT

January 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Professional negligence,, Relief from sanctions, RTA Protocol, Sanctions

I am grateful to barrister Richard Whitehall for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Pearce in the case of Lyle -v- Allianz Insurance plc (Liverpool CC 21st December 2017). It is a case that illustrates…

THE DUTIES OF A SOLICITOR IN LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO TEMPT THE CLIENT TO PURSUE LARGE SUMS: ADVERTISING "TURNED THE CLIENT'S HEAD" AND LED TO INCORRECT ASSERTIONS

THE DUTIES OF A SOLICITOR IN LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO TEMPT THE CLIENT TO PURSUE LARGE SUMS: ADVERTISING “TURNED THE CLIENT’S HEAD” AND LED TO INCORRECT ASSERTIONS

September 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Professional negligence,

In Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 1303  the Court of Appeal considered the extent of a solicitor’s duty and retainer. It is significant in that it: States that the courts should approach the issue of fixed…

"SECOND HAND" SIGNATURES WILL NOT DO -"PRE-SIGNING" THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? – NOT A GOOD IDEA

November 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Professional negligence,, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Uncategorized, Witness statements

This blog has covered the importance of the statement of truth on many occasions.  However the issues revealed in the Solicitors Disciplinary hearing in SRA -v- Jackson reveals a remarkably insouciant approach to the statement of truth. THE CASE The…

PROVING THINGS 33: CAUSATION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS AGAINST SOLICITORS

October 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Professional negligence,, Uncategorized

We have looked before at the decision in The Connaught Income Fund, Series 1 -v- Hewetts Solicitors  [2016] EWHC 2286 (Ch). The previous post was in connection with witness evidence.  However the judgment on the burden of proof is significant in terms…

1 2 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26,223 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES – OR ELSE
  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • “THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE”: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED

Top Posts & Pages

  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES - OR ELSE
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • "THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE": RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin