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…
SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
Here we look at another case where a claimant has come to grief because of a failure to serve the claim form. The ingenious arguments that he should have relief from sanctions were successful at first instance, but were rejected…
MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2 (A) : WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Comment on the implications of the Mazur decision goes on unabated. Some of this is informed commentary, some it is definitely not. On this site we are going to continue the examination of the primary sources of assistance to litigators…
EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
It is rare for there to be a detailed consideration of the principles relating to whether expert evidence is necessary, admissible or desirable. There is a detailed consideration of the principles here, combined with some clear observations on the necessity…
THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Here we are considering a case that covers issues relating to clinical negligence, the drafting of pleadings and wasted costs. It gives much to think about, particularly for those bringing professional negligence actions. (Choose the right type of doctor before…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
This is the start of a new sub-series concentrating on one issue. We will be looking at what has become one of the key matters of concern for many litigators – what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. There…
MAZUR MATTERS 3: CILEX MEMBERS – THE REAL VICTIMS OF ALL THIS: WHAT CILEX MEMBERS CAN DO ABOUT THIS
If any members of the profession are entitled to be disgruntled (to put it mildly) about the decision in Mazur it is CILEX members who conduct litigation. They have hard earned qualifications and extensive experience. However, unless they come within…
COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at an attempt by a paying party defendant to raise issues of conduct, including potential fundamental dishonesty, at the assessment of costs stage. The defendant argued (or attempted to argue) that the costs judge should take…
MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). One interesting aspect of the case is…
MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA “HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE”)
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). However it is clear that it…
WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN “ISSUED” ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT’S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)
I have written before about the “heavy lifting” that sometimes takes place when practitioners attempt to invoke CPR 3.10. Here we look at a case where CPR 3.10 was used to condemn a claimant who had used the wrong procedure…
SERVICE POINTS 11: A PARTY CANNOT SIMPLY MAKE UNILATERAL DECISIONS AS TO SERVICE WHICH OVERRIDE SPECIFIC COURT ORDERS
When a court makes an order as to the means of alternative service it expects the party in question to comply with that order. Here we have a case where the claimant decided on a different means of “serving” the…
WHEN A WITNESS COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: A STATEMENT PREPARED SO BADLY THAT AN ADJOURNMENT WAS NECESSARY
It is fitting that on witness evidence Wednesday we are also looking at a case where there was a wholesale failure to comply with the rules relating to evidence from those whose primary language is not English. The breaches in…
AI USED IN THE WRITING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION: READ ALL ABOUT IT…
There has been much discussion of the advantages, and disadvantages, in lawyers using AI. This is clearly going to be a major issue for the legal profession going forwarded. Last week I reviewed Andrew Hogan’s book on this topic. There…
ISSUING AN INJUNCTION MEANS “PROCEEDINGS” ARE UNDERWAY AND THE CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY THE COSTS AFTER IT WAS SET ASIDE: ALLOWING THE CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS IN THIS APPEAL WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO COMMONSENSE”
Here we look at an ingenious argument about the meaning of “proceedings” and the costs consequences if a claimant has an injunction order set aside. The claimant argued that the nature of the action he pursued did not amount to…
UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK
The Chancery Guide was updated earlier this month. Here we look at the Practice Note and have a link to the updated Guide itself. FINDING THE LINK The Practice Note that accompanies it gives a link to the Guide itself…
THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF TOOLBOX SERIES 3: WHERE DO YOU LOOK IF YOU WANT (OR WANT TO OPPOSE) AN APPLICATION THAT A TRIAL BE ADJOURNED BECAUSE A PARTY OR WITNESS IS ILL?
The motivation for this series arises from a personal experience earlier this year. I had travelled to a hotel in readiness for a trial the following day. At midnight I found out that the other side were asking for an…
THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” CASE CONTINUED: WHY THE CIRCUIT JUDGE ERRED AS TO COSTS: FIXED COSTS APPLIED IN ANY EVENT
We are returning to a case we have looked at several times already. This time on the question of costs. Since the appellants were successful the costs order against them was overturned. However it was held that the judge erred…
MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
As I said yesterday the matters discussed in the recent judgment about whether a fee earner can conduct litigation may have a widespread impact. It is important that litigators are aware of the views of the Law Society and the…
ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
It is not unknown for debtors to seek to transfer property to another person in an attempt to avoid a charging order being made against it. We see see such a case here. A house, initially in the sole name…
BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI “HALLUCINATED” CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
We have another example of a lawyer getting into trouble (potentially very serious trouble) through the use of Artificial Intelligence and its ability to “hallucinate” cases. It was accepted that the error was not deliberate. However the Upper Tribunal pointed…
IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS “FINAL” JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
We are looking at a number of cases that, on the face of it, are highly unusual. One judge has already indicated that there is a strong prima facie cases that some related cases “are all fraudulent”. There are…
SERVICE POINTS 10: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION WHEN PROCEEDINGS WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE: A CASE THAT ROUNDS UP TWO WARNINGS GIVEN TODAY
Earlier today I warned that a recent decision by the Divisional Court in relation to CPR 6.15 was unusual and should not give great comfort to litigators generally, later we looked at the new Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide which…
SERVICE POINTS 9: SERVICE AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IS NOT GOOD SERVICE BUT ON THIS OCCASION – IT FITTED THE BILL…
Here we are looking at an unusual case in relation to service. It is a case where the claimant served at the wrong address but (unusually) the court exercised its discretion to retrospectively validate service. There is more to this,…
SERVICE POINTS 8: APPLICANT FAILS TO SERVE THE SECRETARY OF STATE PROPERLY: A BAD NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM…
I don’t know how many planning lawyers subscribe to this site – it may be none do. However I am fairly confident that they could get full value out of their subscription if it persuaded them to pay attention to…
APPLICANTS FOR INJUNCTIONS: WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR AN INJUNCTION BUT NOT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS BEFOREHAND? THAT PRACTICE SHOULD STOP: HIGH COURT DECISION
Here we are looking at the (to my mind somewhat risky) practice of applying for and obtaining an injunction, without actually issuing proceedings. This judgment is a reminder that this should only happen in exceptional circumstances. (This was an injunction…
COST BITES 285: DOES THE COURT NEED TO VARY THE RECEIVING PARTY’S BUDGET WHEN IT HAS ORDERED THAT COSTS BE PAID ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS?
We are looking again at the award of indemnity costs. The judge ordered that costs be paid to the claimant on the indemnity basis. He then went on to consider whether, given that decision, it was necessary to retrospectively vary…
THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF TOOLBOX SERIES 2: WHERE DO YOU LOOK WHEN FACED WITH AN ARGUMENT ON ASSESSEMENT THAT COSTS SHOULD BE REDUCED BECAUSE OF “PROPORTIONALITY”?
The principles considered here work for both sides. Where does a receiving party look when the paying party wants to reduce costs because of “proportionality”? Where does a paying party look to gain guidance on such issues. I am here…
You must be logged in to post a comment.