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]…
THE RULES OF LITIGATION ARE DETAILED AND IMPORTANT: COURT REFUSES APPEAL – DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RE-LITIGATE HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
The judgment of Collins Rice J in Vafa v Patel [2021] EWHC 198 (QB) shows the importance of knowing and complying with the rules. The judge dismissed an appeal where it had been held that a defendant’s attempt to re-litigate…
ANOTHER WITNESS STATEMENT THAT STRAYED INTO INADMISSIBLE ARGUMENTS, PROTRACTED COMMENTARY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE
There have been a number of recent cases regarding the appropriate drafting of witness statements, in particular attempts to put much inadmissible material into statements. This can be seen in the judgment of HH Russen QC in Philipp v Barclays…
CLAIMANTS SUED THE WRONG (NON-EXISTENT) DEFENDANT – AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD HAD EXPIRED: DON’T START BREAKING THE CROCKERY JUST YET
In The 52 Occupiers of the Ceramic Works v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 17 (TCC) District Judge Baldwin considered an application to substitute a defendant after the primary limitation period had expired. The judge, if anything,…
COVID DOESN’T STOP THE COURTS GOING ON: BUT GREAT CARE IS NEEDED
In Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors v SVS Securities Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 36 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith examined in detail the principles relating to court hearings during COVID. There is an examination of the steps that need…
A CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS SHOULD BE ON THE CLAIM FORM: BUT A FAILURE DOES NOT LEAD TO A GRANT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS
The judgment of Master Kaye in Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 6 (Ch) provides a reminder that the inclusion of the claimant’s address on the claim form is a mandatory requirement [unless an application is…
SERVICE OF DEFENCE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (AND GRANTED)
The judgment of Mr Justice Calver in Ipsum Capital Ltd v Lyall & Ors [2020] EWHC 3508 (Comm) shows the dangers of serving documents by email. The judge held that service of a defence by email was not good service…
COSTS LAWYERS BEWARE: COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE: “AVOIDABLE DELAY” IS NOT LOOKED AT KINDLY
In Masten v London Britannia Hotel Ltd [2020] EWHC B31 (Costs) Mr Leonard refused to set aside a default costs certificate. This serves as a salutary warning of the importance of time limits. Further the Master observed that if a…
MISTAKES IN THE TERMS OF AN ORDER, DENTON AND THE SLIP RULE: AN UNFORTUNATE ERROR LEADS TO A LOT OF LITIGATION
In IC v RC [2020] EWHC 2997 (Fam) Mrs Justice Knowles had to consider the Denton criteria and the slip rule. It also serves as an important warning to anyone undertaking the task of drafting a court order. “I…
