“THE SOMETIMES HARSH, EVEN BRUTAL, DEFAULT CONSEQUENCES OF 36.17 MUST BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE”: RECOVER £10 IN DAMAGES AND STILL GET COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
In Shah & Anor v Shah & Anor [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld the decision of the trial judge that the defendants should bear the normal Part 36 consequences when the claimants had made a Part…
THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT: HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH “ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK”
In Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the “nightmare position” the courts are now in as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to interpreting European Directives. This…
COURT REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE RESPONDENT’S NOTICE LATE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
There is a separate aspect of the decision of Mr Justice Lavender in SGI Legal LLP v Karatysz [2021] EWHC 1608 (QB) that warrants attention, the judge’s refusal to extend time for service of a respondent’s notice. “The purpose of a…
ARGUING THAT A CONVICTION FOLLOWING A GUILTY PLEA WAS WRONG: GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Munir v Revenue And Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 799 the Court of Appeal considered the steps available to a litigant who wished to argue that a criminal conviction was erroneous. In particular a litigant most probably needs to waive…
APPLICATIONS BY EMAIL: JUDGES SHOULD BE ALERT AND THE PROCESS PROCEDURALLY FAIR: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
There are some case where the parties attempt to litigate by correspondence, particularly correspondence with the court. Letters and emails proliferate, with no real structure. The rules of evidence, and the difference between “facts”, “arguments” and “submissions” are usually entirely…
WHEN DOES THE LIMITATION PERIOD START TO RUN WHEN A BARRISTER GIVES TWO ADVICES?
In Sciortino v Beaumont [2021] EWCA Civ 786 the Court of Appeal allowed a claimant’s appeal against a finding that a negligence action against a barrister was statute barred. Although this is a case about limitation and negligence it has…
IN THE MIDNIGHT HOUR – THE SUPREMES’ VERSION: WHEN DOES THE LIMITATION PERIOD START TO RUN? (“WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES”)
Regular readers of this blog would reasonably suppose that lawyers like to live dangerously – leaving tasks to the last minute (and sometimes beyond). An example of this can be seen in the judgment today in Matthew & Ors v…
CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL IN APPLICATION FOR NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE: THEY “SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE APPLICATION IN THE FIRST PLACE”
In Sparkes v London Pension Funds Authority & Anor [2021] EWHC 1265 (QB) Mr Justice Murray allowed an appeal and made an order for non-party disclosure in favour of a claimant. There are few appellate decisions in relation to non-party…
SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE COVID PROTOCOL MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE TIME LIMITS: A POINT TO REMEMBER
In Claydon Yield-O-Meter Ltd v Mzuri Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1322 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon rejected an argument that the Covid Protocol had any effect on the provisions for applying for permission to appeal. The proposed appellants should have applied…
DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE NOT SET ASIDE: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS WRONG, BUT RECTIFIABLE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED
Cases on Default Costs Certificates appear to be like London Buses – they come along in twos. Here we have the second case in two days. In Serbian Orthodox Church – Serbian Patriarchy v Kesar & Co [2021] EWHC 1205…
A PART 36 OFFER MADE LESS THAN 21 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TRIAL IS ADJOURNED
In Reader v SPIE Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1221 (QB) Mr Justice Andrew Baker considered an issue in relation to the construction of CPR 36. A party made an offer less than 21 days before the date set for…
OBJECTING TO EVIDENCE BEING ADMITTED CAUSES PROBLEMS ON APPEAL : CLAIMANT GETS BITTEN BY ITS OWN HORSE
In Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anor v Ahmed & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 675 the Court of Appeal allowed, in part, an assessment against the assessment of damages. What is interesting here is the point that the claimants objection to…
COSTS OUTSIDE THE COSTS BUDGET WHEN A PARTY IS LIMITED TO COURT FEES: STRIKING OUT, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, ADMINSTRATIVE ERRORS BY THE COURT, ABORTIVE COURT HEARINGS: ALL PROCEDURAL LIFE IS HERE…
The decision of Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Pasricha v Pasricha [2021] EWHC 1017 (Ch) contains a consideration of the circumstances in which a court can order costs to be paid to a party when their budget has been limited…
LIMITATION AND THE CLAIMANT’S STATUS: COURT OF APPEAL NOT TOO SYMPATHETIC TO DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD
In OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 501 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an action brought by a company that was in liquidation was not statute barred. “It is, moreover,…
IF YOU’VE MADE THE DEFENDANT BANKRUPT – YOU CAN’T COMPLAIN WHEN YOU’VE GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR
The judgment of the Court of Appeal today in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 505 contains an important lesson to litigators considering enforcing a judgment. The claimant had made the defendant bankrupt whilst…
COURT GRANTS RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: “IT IS UNFAIR… TO BE CRITICAL OF A PARTY FOR FAILING TO MEET A DEADLINE THAT WAS ALREADY UNLIKELY TO BE ANYWAY, WHATEVER STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH IT”
For the second time today I am reporting on a successful application for relief from sanctions. In Melars Group Ltd v East-West Logistics LLP [2021] EWHC 874 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson granted an appellant relief from sanctions following a…
THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AND CPR CANNOT BE USED TO OVERRIDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT CASES BE DEALT WITH “JUSTLY”: HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mr Justice Lane in Ibrahim v London Borough of Haringey & Anor [2021] EWHC 731 shows an unsuccessful attempt to argue that the “overriding objective” justified a preliminary finding made after the court did not hear evidence….
CONSTRUING REGULATIONS AFTER BREXIT: COURT OF APPEAL GUIDANCE: THE CASE OF THE ABSENT PILOT
I am grateful to my colleague Michael Rawlinson QC for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in Lipton -v- BA City Flyer Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 454. The judgment of Lord Justice Green contains a comprehensive…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER TO ACCEPT 90% OF DAMAGES NOT EFFECTIVE WHEN CAUSATION IS IN ISSUE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Seabrook v Adam [2021] EWCA Civ 382 the Court of Appeal considered when a Part 36 offer to accept a reduced percentage on liability was effective when only causation was in dispute. It was held…
THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIOD: ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, PUBLIC POLICY – AND A BASIC ERROR ABOUT THE DATE: CLAIMANT HAS TO FALL BACK ON “UNDUE HARDSHIP” ARGUMENT
The Court of Appeal decision in Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326 contains some interesting observations on the law of tort and duty of care. However the claimant in this case faces another fundamental challenge. There is…