DON’T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT
There is another aspect of the judgment in Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward & Anor [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch) that needs highlighting. The lesson here is clear: you cannot delay service of the claim form on the grounds that you…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 IN A FATAL DISEASE CASE: CASE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AFTER 25 YEAR DELAY
In Pearce & Ors v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy & Ors [2018] EWHC 2009 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the principles relating to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and granted an application where…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 5: REVIEW OF SECTION 33 PRINCIPLES: WHY LIMITATION WASN’T HEARD FIRST
This is the fifth in the series that looks at the decision of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The judgment contains a useful review and survey of Section 33 and…
YOU’VE STARTED SO YOU’LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER
In Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley & Anor [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB) Master Davison set aside the claimant’s notice of discontinuance made after reading the defendant’s additional written submissions after a hearing. The notice of discontinuance was viewed as “tactical….
YOU LOST AT TRIAL – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW…
In Liqwd Inc & Anor v L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat) Mr Justice Birss refused a defendant’s application to “reopen the trial and decide one of the issues afresh” taking into account new evidence. “Many litigants, having…
WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report. The judge,…
HOME SECRETARY REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE EVIDENCE LATE: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE WAS USED EVEN IF DENTON DID NOT APPLY
In Teh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1586 (Admin) the Secretary of State was refused permission to rely on evidence served late. The issue was decided under the Overriding Objective, rather than by reference to the…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
THE LIMITS OF DECLARATORY RELIEF: THE DANGERS OF APPLYING FOR IT: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS (AND PLEADINGS) FAIL TO RAISE THE ROOF
I am grateful to my colleague John de Waal QC at Hardwicke for bringing my attention to the judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Office Depot International (UK) Ltd v UBS Asset Management (UK) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1494 (TCC). It…
PROVING THINGS 112: ITS NO USE JUST WAVING ACCOUNTANT’S REPORTS AROUND
In Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch) the respondent relied on accountant’s reports in an attempt to prove its case. The case shows that it is insufficient just to produce accounts. Evidence has to…
JUDGES CANNOT MAGICALLY ACQUIRE INFORMATION BY OSMOSIS: THE DUTY ON PARTIES TO ENCAPSULATE LONG-RUNNING LITIGATION
In SC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2018] EWHC 1368 (Comm) Patrica Robertson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) reminded practitioners that judges have no magical powers. When a long-running case on a “grand scale” comes before the court…
TRANSFER FROM COUNTY COURT TO HIGH COURT: YOU CAN ASK FOR THIS ONLY ONCE: A DISCRETION TO BE EXERCISED “WITH GREAT CIRCUMSPECTION”
In Bass v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 1297 (QB) Master Davison held it was an abuse of process for a party to make an application to transfer to the High Court when a similar application had been made, and refused,…
“AVOIDING PAROCHIALISM”: TRANSFER BETWEEN DIVISIONS – NO EVIDENCE ONE DIVISION IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER
In Mezvinsky & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1261 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh refused an application to transfer from the Business and Property Courts to the Media and Communications List. “the court hearing an application for transfer must be…
PROVING THINGS 94: : THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO CHOOSE BOTH THE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND AND SOLICITOR: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FAR FROM COMPELLING
There are some audacious applications. However an application by defendants that attempts to dictate who the claimant’s litigation friend should be, and who their solicitor should be, should – at the very least – be backed up by firm evidence. …
DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO A CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT FAILED TO GET PERMISSION TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS
Although the Denton principles are much more settled it is prudent to keep a weather eye on cases where they are considered. His Honour Judge Davis-White QC (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division in Leeds) applied the Denton principles in a…
NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT
In an earlier post about the case of P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 we looked at an example where the parties (all the parties in the case) had correctly used the guidance in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002]…
THE CLEVELAND BRIDGE CASE: A SECOND CROSSING: PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS
Judgments dealing with payments on account of costs are rare, but illuminating. Particularly when the costs budget is taken as the starting point. There is a detailed consideration of this issue in Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Sarens (UK) Ltd [2018]…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 2: “EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT” OF AN APPLICATION
The previous post looked at some of the basic requirements of an application to the court. Here we look at the evidence that may be needed in support of an application. The key point here being “evidence”. Numerous hours are…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 1: THE HUMBLE APPLICATION: WORDING AND TIMING
Last year I was giving an in-house talk at a very prominent firm of litigation solicitors. The litigation partner present (a person of immense experience) made the point that the firm were continually having talks and education on esoteric and…
“PERSUASION”: APPLICATIONS & EVIDENCE: ATTEND A COURSE AND SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LITERACY: 18th APRIL 2018 – LINCOLN’S INN
On the 18th April 2018 I am involved in a talk at Hardwicke, in Lincoln’s Inn. With a number of my colleagues we are talking on “Persuasion” Applications and Evidence for Defendants and Insurers”. All proceeds go directly to a…
YOU APPEAL DECISIONS NOT REASONS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED IN RELATION TO AN ARGUMENT THAT DID NOT CHANGE OUTCOME OF THE CASE
In Civilians v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 690 (QB) Mr Justice Leggatt rejected the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. The proposed appeal was wholly academic in the sense that it had no impact on the outcome of the case. THE…
APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY: IF YOU WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT THEN MAKE SURE YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR IT
On the 18th April 2018 I am, with a number of my colleagues from Hardwicke, giving a talk on “Applications for Defendants”*. The judgment this week in St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) may well feature. It…
A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC
In Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 227 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser made it clear that draft judgments were not to be taken as an invitation to the parties to embark on a second round of submissions….
THE TIME FOR CHALLENGING A BILL HAS PROBABLY LONG GONE: AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY UP
There is a battle (or a series of skirmishes) going on at present in relation to solicitors charging success fees to their clients in personal injury cases. This has led to numerous applications to the courts for disclosure. The former…
NO “GRANDSTANDING” PLEASE: THE COURT IS NOT ASSISTED BY RHETORICAL POINTS
It has been a week for the courts commenting on advocates. Earlier we had complaints of advocates interrupting each other. Today we have complaints of “grandstanding”. Reminding advocates that their task is to deal with the legal issues at hand…
THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS JUST ABOUT TO EXPIRE AND YOU ARE NOT READY: FIVE KEY POINTS FOR WHEN YOU DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH
No matter how hard litigators try (and how many warnings are given) it appears inevitable that, sooner or later, you are going to have a case where the limitation period is about to expire but you are not ready. The…
PARTIES MUST OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR A HEARING OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: (MORE ON LENGTHY SKELETON ARGUMENTS)
In Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 320 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans considered several important issues of procedure. Firstly the need for parties to obtain an order for a hearing on a preliminary issue rather than simply turning up on…
TIME ESTIMATES: PROBLEMS WHEN THE ESTIMATES ARE TOO SHORT: STILL LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE
I have been searching (so far unsuccessfully) for guidance to litigators and litigants to help provide accurate time estimates. This may well be more of an art than a science. However it is a skill that needs honing. Not only…
THE COURT “REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED” EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Ogale Community & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 191 the Court of Appeal made observations about the need to keep applications about jurisdiction in proportion. “… hearings concerning the issue of appropriate forum should…
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY
An interesting point arose in the Court of Appeal decision today in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190. When a party seeks permission to appeal from the trial judge – can the other party make submissions in…
THE PROBLEM IN OBTAINING AN ORDER YOU HAVEN’T ASKED FOR:AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 3.4 WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION UNDER PART 24
The judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Saeed & Anor v Ibrahim & Ors [2018] EWHC 3 (Ch) contains several important observations in relation to making applications. The Master refused to treat an application, ostensibly made under CPR 3.4, as an…
COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL – THE FULL JUDGMENT
I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) at the end of last year. The full judgment is now available and is attached here 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment A SUMMARY The…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (I): “SURVIVING THE EMOTIONS OF LITIGATION” & “THINGS THAT IRRITATE JUDGES”
This is the fourth annual review on this blog. This year I have decided to break it into a number of reviews. First it is interesting to look at what is being read on this site and the search terms…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 3: LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND “IMPLICIT” ORDERS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
We have already looked twice at the “sparring” arguments in relation to procedure in the case of McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm). A further procedural issue arose as to whether a party was debarred from calling evidence at all. The…
AFTER THE EVENT INSURANCE DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1872 the Court of Appeal decided that the existence of an after the event insurance policy to cover legal expenses did not prohibit a court from ordering…
SUING THE WRONG DEFENDANT? SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS?
It is always embarrassing to find out you are suing the wrong defendant and have to apply for substitution (although we have looked at cases in which the wrong claimant has issued proceedings). This issue was considered by Mr Justice…
COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUANCE VARIED: CLAIMANT TO PAY INDEMNITY NOT STANDARD COSTS: TWO RIGHT FEET BROUGHT THE WRONG ACTION
When a claimant discontinues an action there is an automatic provision that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs (CPR 38.6). In Two Right Feet Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 1745 (Ch) Ms Sara Cockerill Q.C. made…
THE DENTON CRITERIA AND DISHONESTY: TELLING A LIE MAY NOT BE “SIGNIFICANT” BUT IT IS ALWAYS SERIOUS.
I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me through a copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Robinson in the case of Wadsley -v- Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (a copy of that judgment is available here Wadsley…
LEAVING ISSUE UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT – ALWAYS DANGEROUS : PARTICULARLY WHEN A CLAIMANT IS ON NOTICE OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
In Hall v Environment Agency [2017] EWHC 1309 (TCC) His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC pointed out the dangers of leaving issue until the last moment, particularly in cases where there were likely to be procedural issues relating to jurisdiction. THE CASE…
DEFENDANT IN CASE WITH PROTECTED PARTY ENTITLED TO RESILE FROM “COMPROMISE”: REQUIREMENT FOR COURT APPROVAL NOT A BREACH OF ECHR RIGHTS
In Revill v Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans held that the rule that required a protected party to obtain a court order to approve a proposed settlement remained good law. It did not breach the claimant’s human rights….
LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER DID NOT TAKE THE HEART OUT OF THE USUAL RULES AS TO COSTS: PART 36.13 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: CLAIMANT SURVIVES A HEATED ATTACK
I am grateful to Thomas Riis-Bristow from Irwin Mitchell solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Truman in Knibbs -v-Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (23/6/2017). It is an interesting (and important) consideration of…
PERMISSION TO APPEAL – TWO YEARS OUT OF TIME – SET ASIDE: COURT WAS “MISLED BY SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND NON DISCLOSURES”
In Kovarska v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1485 the Court of Appeal set aside an extension of time for appealing. The order had been granted without a hearing. It was held that the Court…
“BREATHTAKINGLY RUDE” LETTERS INDICATED AN INTENT TO ABUSE THE PROCESS: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT IN FAILING TO PAY FOR PITCH CROSSED THE LINE
In Bernard Sport Surfaces Ltd v Astrosoccer4u Ltd [2017] EWHC 2425 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson had strong words to say about correspondence and conduct which, he held, were simply attempts to avoid a debt that was lawfully due. “… all of…
NOT PROCEEDING WITH LITIGATION FOR ONE YEAR IS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE ACTION WAS NOT BEING “WAREHOUSED”: BUT STILL A POINT TO WATCH
In Grenda Investments Ltd v Barton [2017] EWHC 2371 (Comm)Mr Justice Picken considered (and rejected) an argument that the claimant’s failure to proceed with litigation for a year amounted to an abuse of process. Although the application failed this case does…
DISPUTE BETWEEN SOLICITORS: PERMISSION TO AMEND REFUSED AS IT WAS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON AN EARLIER DECISION: CONCESSION MADE BY MISTAKE CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN
In Mark Lewis Law Ltd & Anor v Taylor Hampton Solicitors Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2359 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple DBE refused an application by the defendant solicitors to amend its counterclaim shortly before trial. It is a case that…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE: PUTTING IN THE POST ON REQUISITE DATE IS GOOD SERVICE: NO SAFE HARBOUR FOR DEFENDANTS ON THIS ISSUE
Master McCloud has already made observations about the ” dry and unlovely crop of procedural service issues” that are regularly coming before the Masters. Another issue was considered in Jones v Chichester Harbour Conservancy & Ors [2017] EWHC 2270. “… the correct…
SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PERMISSION: THE COURT HAS POWER TO RECTIFY THE POSITION RETROSPECTIVELY
Can the court rectify the situation when a claimant, who requires permission to continue proceedings, has issued and served without such permission? That was the question considered by His Honour Judge Davis-White QC in Wilton UK Ltd v Shuttleworth & Ors…
NO SPECIAL FORM OF “MEDIATION PRIVILEGE”: MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT OVERRIDE GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREVENTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION BEING USED A A FORM OF BLACKMAIL
The decision of Mrs Justice Rose in Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster & Ors [2015] EWHC 3895 (Ch) considers the issue of “mediation privilege”. This is not a new case (the judgment was dated 21st December 2015) however it has…
NOT ALL WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AHEAD OF A TRIAL: THE TIMES HAS TO WAIT
In Blue -v- Ashley & The Times Newspapers Limited [2017] EWHC 1553 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt considered whether a witness statement should be disclosed to the public when it had been referred to at a pre-trial hearing. The application was…
SETTING ASIDE DISCONTINUANCE AND DISAPPLYING QOCS: A HIGH COURT DECISION
In Shaw -v- Medtronic [2017] EWHC 1397 (QB) Mr Justice Lavender considered issues relating to the setting aside of notices of discontinuance and disapplying QOCS. He declined to set aside a notice of discontinuance or give permission to enforce costs…
You must be logged in to post a comment.