LAWYERS, DEADLINES AND PROCRASTINATION: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? (“A DEADLINE… THAT IS ALL”)
Many of the cases that appear on this blog, particularly those dealing with sanctions and service, arise because things are left to the very last minute. We have looked before at lawyers and procrastination. I thought that perhaps this is…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
EXTENSIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS OF NO USE: A COMMON FINDING
We have already looked at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cockerill in Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm). It is worth looking at what the judge had to say about the witness evidence before…
NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE “ACCEPTANCE” OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE
In Devoy-Williams -v- High Cartwright & Amin [2018] EWHC 2815 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk upheld a decision that an action was struck out and that relief from sanctions should not be granted. It is a reminder (amongst other things) of…
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….
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…
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…
TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY
In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting. The case provides…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TRIAL FEE: THIS IS ALWAYS A POINT TO WATCH
In April this year the rules were amended to introduce a concept of “automatic striking out”. Put simply if a claimant does not pay the court fee by the relevant date. I have seen occasions where this has had effect….
WHEN THE CLAIMANT WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO ACCEPT £300,000: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (THIS DOESN’T END WELL FOR SOMEONE)
Earlier this week there was a post on the case of Houghton (Stanley) -v- P.B. Donaghue (Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd & Ors) [2017] EWHC 1738 (Ch) in which a claimant was refused permission to accept an offer of £300,000 after…
COURT OF APPEAL: REFUSAL TO ENGAGE WITH AN OPEN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
In Balk -v- Otkrite International Investment [2017] EWCA the Court of Appeal was highly critical of a litigant’s failure to respond to an open offer of settlement of appeal. The failure to engage with an open offer of settlement amounted…
ADVISING ABOUT THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: YOU DON’T PAY ME TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS DISMISSED
In Seery -v- Leathes Prior (a firm) [2016] EWHC80 (QB) Sir David Eady dismissed a claim for negligence against a firm of solicitors. One of the issues considered was whether the claimant should have been encouraged to litigate. The claim…
COSTS AT THE END OF A CASE: INDEMNITY COSTS, PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT AND GOING BEYOND THE COSTS BUDGET
In Barkhuysen -v- Hamilton [2016] EWHC 3371 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered matters relating to costs after a trial. The defendant’s conduct led to an order for indemnity costs being made. The judge also identified those areas in which the claimant…
YOU CAN BE A TOUGH NEGOTIATOR- YOU CAN ALSO FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE: HIGH COURT CASE EXAMINED
The law of privilege prevents a close study of the negotiation process in most cases. That is why everyone involved in litigation could benefit from reading the judgment today of Mrs Justice Slade in FPH Law -v- Brown [2016] EWHC…
WHAT IS A TRIAL? AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?
In Pickard -v- Roberts [2016] EWHC 187 (Ch) Mr John Baldwin QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) had to consider whether a hearing was a “trial” and whether this had any impact upon the decision to…
TEN NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FOR LITIGATORS IN 2016
Some resolutions to keep you prosperous and out of difficulties in 2016. (Happy New Year) 1. NEVER, EVER, GUESS ABOUT A LIMITATION PERIOD (OR TAKE A CLIENT’S WORD FOR IT) Litigators of all types must have a clear idea about…
"HOW TO GET SUED, MAKE A LOSS AND BE MISERABLE": 22nd SEPTEMBER 2015: HARDWICKE BUILDING, LONDON: RAISING FUNDS FOR THE BILLABLE HOUR
LITIGATORS: HOW TO GET SUED: MAKE A LOSS AND BE MISERABLE RAISING MONEY FOR THE BILLABLE HOUR APPEAL (ALL PROCEEDS GO TO THE APPEAL) Gordon Exall and PJ Kirby QC. Hardwicke Building, Lincoln’s Inn. TUESDAY 22nd SEPTEMBER 2015 5.30 –…
A SORRY TALE OF MODERN LITIGATION: ALL AROUND THE HOUSES
There are some cases where the “reasonable bystander” may feel that all rationality has been lost by the litigants. Read the opening paragraph of Mr Justice Akenhead’s judgment in Mears Ltd -v- Shoreline Housing Partnership Limited [2015] EWHC 1396 (TCC)….
WASTED COSTS HEARING: NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE OF LIKELY COSTS INVOLVED: CAVEAT LITIGATOR
In Kagalovsky -v- Balmore Invest Limited [2015] EWEHC 1337 (QB) Mr Justice Turner turned down a wasted costs application at the first stage. “A cigarette packet carries the warning that smoking can kill you. Solicitors’ standard terms of business should…