THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM DOES NOT COWER IN THE SHADOWS: IT IS DIFFICULT FOR LITIGANTS TO BE ANONYMOUS: NO “PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE” HERE
If you are ever asked the question as to what the similarities are between dancers at Spearmint Rhino and employees of Members of Parliament then there is only one appropriate answer. They have both applied for, and been refused, permission…
WHEN TWO EXPERTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE: IT MAY BE MORE ART THAN SCIENCE…
Many of the reported cases in relation to the courts and witness experts are about the judge restricting the use of experts. In Borro Ltd & Ors v Aitken [2021] EWHC 1902 (Ch) HHJ Johns QC (sitting as a High…
DEFENDANT UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PART OF CLAIMANT’S WITNESS EVIDENCE: WHEN “HYPOTHETICAL” EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE
The judgment of Sir Michael Burton in Mad Atelier International BV v Manes [2021] EWHC 1899 (Comm) is possibly the first time that Practice Direction 57AC – Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts has been considered by the…
COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER DRAFT JUDGMENT WAS CIRCULATED
In Karunia Holdings Ltd v Creativityetc Ltd [2021] EWHC 1864 (Ch) HHJ Halliwell considered, and refused, a claimant’s application to adduce new evidence after a draft judgment had been handed down in an application for summary judgment. ” The…
FAILURE TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM PROPERLY WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO DO SO: THIS MAY NOT BE GOOD LAW BUT IT IS THE LAW…
I have written many times about cases where claimants have come to grief in relation to service of the claim form. Another example can be found in the judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell. In R (on the application of The…
THE COPYING OF TRIAL BUNDLES: WHO PAYS THE PRICE?
In the judgment today in Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) had to determine an issue in relation to who pays the costs of copying a trial…
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…
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CASE IS COSTS BUDGETED? WHEN IS THE SOLICITOR EXPECTED TO JUMP?
In Thompson -v- NSL Limited [2021] EWHC 679 (QB) Master McCloud considered the issue of whether there had been significant developments sufficient to allow a revision of the costs budget when it was known at the time the budget was…
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…
APPLICANT FAILS TO SATISFY COURT THAT LITIGANT LACKED CAPACITY: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Greetham v Greetham [2021] EWHC 998 (QB) Mr Justice Soole rejected an application in relation the appointment of a litigation friend. The applicant failed to prove that the litigant lacked capacity. Further the court did not accept that the…
“IN VIEW OF THE LAMENTABLE WAY IN WHICH BOTH THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN PREPARED, I DISALLOW ALL COSTS OF TODAY”: JUDGE CRITICAL OF SKELETON ARGUMENTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS
In Ahmed & Anor v Ahmed [2021] EWHC 1021 (Ch) Mr David Halpern QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) had much to say in relation to manner in which an application was brought before the court. The skeleton…
THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE TO CONTRACT OUT OF COURT ORDERS: A LESSON FROM THE FAMILY COURT
Although the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in AS v CS (Private FDR) [2021] EWFC 34 relates to family proceedings the principle set out may well be of more general application. The fact that the parties have agreed to a…
TIME ESTIMATES FOR APPLICATIONS: THE PROBLEMS, THE CASE LAW AND SOME GUIDANCE
The post earlier this morning on the warnings given in Finvest Holdings Sarl -v- Lovering [2021] 3WLUK 579 inrelation to inaccurate time estimates has led to some responses on Twitter. Practitioners have highlighted the difficulties, a judge expressed their concern that…
INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES CAN LEAD TO COSTS PENALTIES: A REMINDER
There is another aspect of the judgment in Finvest Holdings Sarl -v- Lovering [2021] 3WLUK 579 HHJ Pelling (sitting as a High Court Judge) that merits examination. The judgment emphasised the need for accurate time estimates. THE CASE The judge…
A SPLIT TRIAL IS NOT ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA: ORDERS MADE WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS CAN PROVE TO BE A COSTLY EXERCISE
In Mather v Ministry of Defence [2021] EWHC 811 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman refused the claimant’s application for a split trial. “The law reports are littered with cases where a preliminary issue seemed a good cost-saving exercise, but where…
JUDGE REFUSES TO VARY THE TERMS OF ORIGINAL ORDER: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION DID NOT FLY
In Walton Family Estates Ltd & Ors v GID Services Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 464 (Comm) Andrew Hochhauser QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, refused a defendant’s application to reconsider the terms of an earlier order. …
SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: DELAY, FAILING TO KNOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE AND ABSENCE OF MERITS: LORD CHANCELLOR WINS THE DAY…
The judgment of Master Thornett in The Lord Chancellor (as Successor to the Legal Services Comission) v Halberstadt-Twum (t/a Cleveland Solicitors) & Anor [2021] EWHC 413 contains some object lessons for anyone involved in an application to set aside default…
UNLESS ORDER MADE WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT PAID AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER FOR COSTS
In Junejo v New Vision TV Ltd [2021] EWHC 449 (QB) Deputy Master Hill QC made a peremptory order that the claimant pay an order for costs. However that payment was to be by instalments. There is a useful review…
ADJOURNMENT OF A TRIAL IS A “LAST RESORT” (AND WILL RARELY OCCUR BECAUSE OF INABILITY OF SPECIFIC COUNSEL TO ATTEND)
The judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Naylor v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 340 (QB) shows the difficulty of obtaining an adjournment of a trial date. The judge rejected an application on the grounds of…
THE CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN ADDITIONAL PARTIES ARE JOINED INTO AN ACTION: NOT £55 BUT £10,000 (OH, AND YOU CAN’T RELY ON WHAT THE COURT TOLD YOU…)
There are not many cases where a judge is asked to determine what the appropriate court fee should be. However this is precisely what occurred in the judgment of HHJ Pearce in Walayat & Ors v Berkeley Solicitors Ltd [2021]…