CONTEMPT OF COURT (1) CONTEMPT NEED NOT BE “CONTUMELIOUS” (WHATEVER THAT MEANS): WHY CHIEF CONSTABLES, CHIEF EXECUTIVES, MINISTERS OF STATE AND BOSSES EVERYWHERE NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO LITIGATION
I am breaking down this important Court of Appeal decision into a number of parts. We have already looked at the judgment as to the numerous “misleading” witness statements that were filed. The Court of Appeal also makes important observations…
APPEAL STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF APPELLANTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A COMPLIANT BUNDLE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED
All those involved in the appeal process, indeed litigation generally, are best advised to read this judgment. It is about the standard the court’s expect when an appeal is being brought. It is also about procedural failures and failures to…
DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025
This year has see more than its fair share of cases relating to default, sanctions and wasted costs. Knowing what those cases are, the problems that arose, how they were caused and the results are essential skills for litigators. More…
COURT CONSIDERS APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE MADE ON THE THIRD DAY OF THE TRIAL: “THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANY MONTHS BEFORE…”
It is unusual for an application for further disclosure, particularly extensive disclosure, to be made part way through a trial. The judge considered such an application in this case. This led to the obvious question – why wasn’t this application…
ANOTHER “BUNDLES” ISSUE: THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRACTICE DIRECTION ON THE CITATION OF AUTHORITIES; “I’M PICKING UP BAD CITATIONS” – THE REMIX…
It is often worthwhile looking at short judgments or comments at the end of a case, particularly in the Court of Appeal. They sometimes contain little gems of very useful information. We see that here in the short judgment of…
MAZUR MATTERS 35: DOES AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON SIGNING AN APPLICATION MEAN IT CAN BE STRUCK OUT “WITHOUT MORE”?
Here we are looking at case report which contains a reference to Mazur and appears to suggest that signature of an application by an unauthorised person means that the application is “liable to be struck out”. As it turns out…
TALES FROM THE COSTS LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS 2: (MIS) CONDUCT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Staying with the conference today. Costs Judge Leonard gave an interesting talk on “conduct” in the assessment process which he, said was more accurately about “misconduct in the assessment process. (This was one of Judge Leonard’s slides. It highlights the…
TALES FROM THE COSTS LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS 1 : MAZUR ISSUES: WAS IT CORRECTLY DECIDED? WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COST LAWYERS ARE REGULATED
Today I am writing directly from the Association of Costs Lawyers conference in London. Unsurprisingly the first two speakers considered Mazur. This is a highly abbreviated version of their talks. ANDREW ROY KC Andrew, kindly referring to this blog as…
MAZUR MATTERS 34: “LEGAL EXECUTIVES” AND THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT LITIGATION AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION PAPER FROM 2010: ANOTHER PIECE OF THE “HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED”? JIGSAW
We have, in the past few months, been addressing issues that arise from a statute passed some 18 years ago. The issues in relation to the obligation of solicitors and authorised persons (and only solicitors and authorised persons) to conduct litigation…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 35: THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD RUN A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT PLEADINGS WAS “NOTHING MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING” (OR PERHAPS TANGERINE DREAMING)
Here we are looking at a pleadings issue that arose in the Intellectual Property Patents Court. The scientific issues here may be complex, however the rules remain the same. The judge found that that the defendants’ pleaded case did not…
“LITIGANTS IN PERSON SHOULD BE WARY OF UNQUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DEFEND OR PURSUE CASES BY REFERENCE TO SPURIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE”
It is rare for this blog to look at judgments from other jurisdictions. However some words from the High Court of Ireland caught my eye. It offers advice, in particular, to litigants in person. (This is not a warning in…
THE CLAIMANT RELIED ON A FALSE AUTHORITY: THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LITIGANT TO CHECK THE CITATION
We are looking again at the phenomenon of “false” authorities. However in this case the courts were more forgiving of the litigant who had relied on a non-existent case. The judgment does, however, show the need for care in legal…
DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR…
It is that time of year when we can look back and reflect on events of the previous 12 months. Here we are looking at what lessons can be learnt from cases on default and sanctions since November 2024. As…
COST BITES 305: THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST A PARTY WHEN TWO ACTIONS WERE “JOINED” AND NOT “CONSOLIDATED”: AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE RULES
We are looking at a case where the appellant was successful in overturning an award for costs made against him in relation to one set of proceedings. The judgment highlights the important distinction between “joinder” and “consolidation”. That distinction can…
DEFENCES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: SHOULD RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BE GRANTED?
Here we look at a case where the defendants failed to comply with a peremptory order for disclosure. The defences stood struck out. The issue the judge had to determine was whether relief from sanctions should be granted. This in…
COST BITES 304: IN A DISPUTED WILL CASE WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHAT SHOULD THE BASIS OF THE ORDER BE? SHOULD THERE BE AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS?
There are particular rules that relate to costs in probate proceedings. Here we look at a decision on costs that is of more general interest. The judge considered the issue of whether the unsuccessful defendant should pay the costs, the…
MAZUR MATTERS 30: BREAKING NEWS: LEGAL SERVICES BOARD GRANTS CILEX’S APPLICATION FOR STAND ALONE LITIGATION RIGHTS
The Legal Services Board has today approved an application from CILEx Regulation to allow legal executives to obtain standalone litigation practice rights. Here we have the announcement and the Decision Notice. The finer detail will be considered when it becomes…
SERVICE POINTS 16: DID THE COURT HAVE POWER TO STATE THAT SERVICE OF A CLAIM FORM AT THE HOUSE COMMONS COULD BE RATIFIED RETROSPECTIVELY?
We have already looked at this case at first instance, see Service Points 9, the initial decision was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case we look at here. The Court here was concerned with whether the courts…
MAZUR MATTERS 29: MORE USEFUL LINKS: THE FOIL RESPONSE
Here we are looking at another useful link. FOIL (the Federation of Insurance Lawyers) has produced a document dealing with the potential consequences of Mazur for its members. (FOIL has always been such a clever name. This link shows that…
COST BITES 303: THE SOLICITOR CANNOT PASS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE BILL TO THE COSTS LAWYER: A 75% REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BILL WAS DRAFTED
Here we are looking at a case involving a bill of costs that was wholly defective that the costs judge was invited to strike it out. The judge came very close, but reduced the bill by 75% instead. There…
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH A STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN PERMISSION PRIOR TO ISSUE LEADS TO AN ACTION BEING A NULLITY
We are looking here at at case where an action was struck out because of a failure to obtain permission of the court to issue proceedings. The judge rejected the claimant’s contention that the statute in question should be read…
DOES THE COUNTY COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE AN ACTION BROUGHT ON A FOREIGN JUDGMENT? SHOULD THE ACTION BE STRUCK OUT?
Here we have the County Court considering an unusual issue of jurisdiction. Does it have jurisdiction to decide an action brought at common law on a foreign judgment? If it does not should the action be struck out or simply…
SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT
This is a case about mistakes in litigation and the rules relating to allowing the withdrawal of a pre-action admission. The judgment was given 10 years ago, but arrived on BAILII today. The issues raised here remain highly relevant. In…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 33: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS STRIKING OUT OF SCHEDULE OF DAMAGES: “OVER-COMPLICATED”, “UNCLEAR”. “LACKING IN THE MOST BASIC INFORMATION NECESSARY” (OH AND MANY OF THE CLAIMS WERE UNPLEADED…)
It is rare for a schedule of damages to come under close scrutiny prior to the trial itself. Here the Court of Appeal upheld a decision to strike out large parts of the appellants’ claim for damages. Many of the…
EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…
No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here. The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…
MEMBER NEWS: UPDATE ON THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINAR SERIES: THIS SITE WILL BE OFFLINE FOR AN HOUR ON THE 29th OCTOBER
There are two pieces of news. Firstly the site is having a short “rest” on the 29th October, this is only for an hour – but it will be back newly invigorated. Secondly a reminder of some of the webinars…
COST BITES 301: THE AARHUS COST CAP FIGURES ARE NOT SETT IN STONE: BUT IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PERSUADE A COURT TO CHANGE THEM
This may be the first time we have looked at the issue of costs and badgers. We are looking at a case where the defendant sought to change the amounts of the “Aarhus cap” on the recoverability of costs in…
SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND TO EXTEND TIME: THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK PERMISSION CAN EASILY BE MISSED: SOMETHING FOR WOULD BE APPELLANTS TO WATCH OUT FOR
The circumstances in which a judge at first instance can grant permission to appeal from their own decision are circumscribed by the rules. Permission can only be given at the hearing itself, or any adjournment thereof. The same applies to…
THE RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS ABOUT FAILURES OF PROCEDURE WERE NOT “NIT PICKING”: RATHER THEY SHOWED THAT THE APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY BROUGHT AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED…
There are often major differences of view as to the effect of non-compliance with the rules. We have such differences here. The claimants, in default, regarded the respondents’ procedural objections as “nit-picking”. The judge, however, held that the default was…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (3): ARE THE CPR PROVISIONS RELATING TO VULNERABILITY RELEVANT? WHOSE JOB IS IT TO CONSIDER THEM IN THIS CONTEXT?
We are looking again at the case in which the claimant applied for permission to withdraw their Part 36 offer. The claimant had capacity, however at the hearing it was argued that he came within the definition of “vulnerable” litigant…
WHEN A RESPONDENT’S NOTICE IS REALLY A CROSS-APPEAL: SHOULD THE COURT GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ALLOW THE “APPEAL” TO BE ARGUED?
Sometimes a respondent’s notice is really a cross-appeal attempting to disguise itself. We are looking at such a case here. The “respondent’s notice” was served late, and permission was given to serve it. However on closer examination at the appeal…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (2): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
We continue with the consideration of the recent case in which a claimant applied for permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer. The judge also considered the relevant rules and case law in detail. (You need the court’s permission to…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? IS A “CHANGE OF MIND” A “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES”: THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
There are few cases which involve a claimant seeking to withdraw their own Part 36 offer we have a decision today here. The claimant made an offer and attempted to withdraw is shortly afterwards. The defendant accepted the offer within…
SERVICE POINTS 15: THE CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (2): LEAVING A CLAIM FORM OUT FOR THE DX TO COLLECT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE SERVICE
The Court of Appeal has been busy recently with issues relating to service of the claim form. On the whole claimants (or rather their representatives) have not fared well. Here we look at the claimant’s argument that leaving a claim…
WHEN A SOLICITOR SIGNS THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH FOR A COMPANY: THE COURT CAN ORDER THAT THE COMPANY DELIVERS UP DETAILS OF WHICH INDIVIDUAL GAVE INFORMATION
It is not uncommon for the solicitor to sign a statement of truth on behalf of a company or corporation. This case considers the question of whether the company can be compelled to give details of the individuals who gave…
SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A “MIXED” CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL
What order for costs should the court make in a “mixed” claim when part of the claim is struck out but a personal injury claim continues. That was the question considered in the appeal we are looking at here. In…
“PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SERVE QUITE DIFFERENT PURPOSES”: THE NEED FOR CLAIMANTS TO PLEAD THEIR CASE WHEN APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION
We are looking at a case that deals with two issues: (i) the practice of seeking an injunction without having first issued proceedings; (ii) the desirability of a party seeking an injunction to put a fully pleaded case before the…
GIVING ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: ANOTHER REMINDER OF THEIR IMPORTANCE: “PARTIES MUST BE REALISTIC AND GIVE EARLY AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS”
This is not the first time this blog has looked at judicial criticisms of inadequate time estimates. On this occasion it was in relation to unrealistic reading time. This provides an opportunity to revisit the guidance given in relation to…
COST BITES 296: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION FOR A COSTS CAP: CAN THE LITIGATING TENANTS PUSH THE COSTS RISKS ONTO THE NON-LITIGANTS?
Here we are looking at a Court of Appeal decision in relation to the costs capping on an appeal. It was common ground that the Court had the power to order a costs cap if so minded. However the practical…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.