USEFUL CHECKLISTS TO HELP ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MAZUR: PART OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED WITH THE WEBINAR ON THE 9th APRIL
The webinar on Thursday provides a wealth of material in relation to compliance with the Court of Appeal guidance as to the conduct of litigation after the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur. In addition there is a series of…
MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
I am grateful to Ritchie Young for sending me a copy of this judgment in which the District Judge refused to allow an unauthorised person a right of audience in a small claims track case. It is not technically part…
MAZUR MATTERS 58: LEARN HOW TO SUPERVISE STAFF PROPERLY – OR RISK GOING TO JAIL: IT IS WISE TO RECORD SUPERVISION ARRANGEMENTS FULLY
One key element of the Mazur decision, that needs repeating, is that it does not allow unauthorised persons to “conduct” litigation. It allows unauthorised people to assist and conduct the tasks involved in litigation so long as they are properly…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY (ON A TUESDAY…) : THE RULES ABOUT SERVING NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS: SERVE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE – OR TAKE THE RISK
There are cases where those making applications make a tactical decision not to serve the application at once. They think, wrongly, that the rules only require three days notice to be given. This belief if wrong. As we shall see…
MAZUR MATTERS 57: THE INDEMNITY INSURER’S VIEW: “DOES IT CHANGE THAT MUCH REALLY?”: “I STRUGGLE TO THINK OF REAL LIFE SCENARIOS THAT WOULD HAVE FALLEN FOUL OF SHELDON J’S DISTINCTION BUT ARE NOW LAWFUL (AND VICE VERSA)”
I have written several times that when it came to providing practical guidance on how to deal with the Mazur judgment it was often insurers that were far more helpful than the regulators. It is worthwhile having a look at…
ANOTHER CASE ON FAILING TO PAY THE COURT FEE: AN APPEAL WAS STILL LODGED IN TIME EVEN THOUGH NO FEE WAS PAID AT ALL
Here we have a case that extends the principles in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey. The Court of Appeal held that a statutory appeal was lodged within time, even though it was sent by email to the court and no fee was…
MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: (THIS IS NOT “AS YOU WERE”): WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026
I have already written about the misunderstandings that have occurred in relation to the Mazur judgment. The judgment is far more nuanced than some commentators suggest and a detailed knowledge of what is required is essential for anyone involved in…
MAZUR MATTERS 55: THINGS WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (2): WHAT DEGREE OF SUPERVISION IS REQUIRED: THIS “WILL ALWAYS DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES”
It is important to note that the Court of Appeal decision yesterday did not create a “free for all” for unauthorised persons to undertake the conduct of litigation. Far from it. A central part of the judgment was the need…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 5: THE “NUANCED” BITS: IT IS ALL ABOUT DELEGATION OF TASKS AND SUPERVISION (AND HERE IT IS OVER TO THE REGULATORS…)
I have already written that the judgement is Mazur is far more nuanced than many commentators have suggested. It does not give a “free for all” for non-authorised persons to litigate. Rather it gives authorised lawyers the ability to delegate…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 3: NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: BUT WE DO HAVE THE “MAGNIFICENT SEVEN”
We continue our look at the judgment today by looking at the court’s more detailed consideration of what was meant by the “conduct of litigation”. The court did not give a definition. However it did give seven key points as to…
MAZUR COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE OVERTURNED: THE SUPERVISION OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
I will be writing about this judgment throughout the day. The first posts will contain a summary of the views from the court. Later posts will analyse the position as a whole. This post contains a consideration of the carrying…
MASTERING PD57AC – GETTING WITNESS STATEMENTS RIGHT IN THE COMMERCIAL COURTS (AND THE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU DON’T): WEBINAR 30th APRIL 2026
Witness statements can make—or break—your case in the Commercial Courts. Since the introduction of Practice Direction 57AC in April 2021, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that compliance is not optional. Yet many practitioners continue to fall into the same costly…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 63: WHEN ARE AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS “CONSEQUENTIAL” – DOES A PARTY HAVE “GENERAL RIGHT” TO INTRODUCE NEW MATTERS?
Here we continue with our examination of attempts to amend pleadings. We are looking at the same case as the previous post but a different judgment from a different judge. Here the claimant amended its Particulars of Claim and the…
HOW A FIRM OF SOLICITORS SHOULD NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN LITIGATION: A WORKING EXAMPLE: EVIDENCE THAT WAS “GENERALLY UNRRELIABLE” AND “LACKING IN CREDIBILITY”
Here we are looking at a judgment that contains some remarkable observations and findings about the conduct of a solicitor. The judge was concerned not only about the failure to comply with directions, the inadequate nature of the statement of…
PROVING THINGS 284: APPLICANT FOR INJUNCTION FAILS ON JUST ABOUT EVERY POINT: THE CASE WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND; NO EVIDENCE OF A RISK OF DISSIPATION; MATTERS THAT LEAVE THE JUDGE “BAFFLED” AND UNCOMFORTABLE
The applicant in this case sought an injunction. The application was (unusually) made on notice. The respondent did not have the opportunity to put in evidence. The applicant failed on just about every point. It was unclear what the applicant’s…
GETTING YOUR CASE INTO THE RIGHT COURT: A BIZARRE DECISION TO PUT A CASE IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION: MAKING THE CORRECT SELECTION IS IMPORTANT AND MIGHT MATTER
It is important that cases are managed, and heard, in the appropriate specialist court. Here we have a case that went on a frolic of its own into the Chancery Division for a while before being put back into the…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MAKING A MISTAKE AND THEN BIGGING A DEEPER HOLE FOR YOURSELF: MARCH 2018
Here we are looking at a set of circumstances that we have seen many time, both before and after this post from March 2018. A lawyer makes a mistake, panics and then makes horrendous decisions in an attempt to cover…
EXPERT WATCH 42: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE – BUT A SIMPLE STEP UP FROM “NUMBER CRUNCHING” : ALSO OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Here we have a case where the judge found evidence provided by experts to be of “assistance” but where he was clear in his view that the information put forward was not expert evidence. The evidence was “simply a kind…
THE “SEVEN DAY” DOCUMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: YOU DON’T PLAN NOT TO COMPLY – BUT…
In civil procedure it is often the failure to comply with clear and obvious rules that can cause difficulties or annoyance. We have an example here in the Planning Court (however the rules in question apply to all judicial review…
IF YOU MISSED THE WEBINAR ON INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION IT IS NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
The webinar on informing the client about the costs of litigation is now available “on demand” and details can be found here. THE REASONS FOR THE WEBINAR Recent Legal Ombudsman decisions show that solicitors’ firms are being ordered…
COST BITES 368: THERE WERE NO “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE” WHICH MEANT THE SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED OUT OF TIME: THERE IS NOTHING THAT CALLS FOR AN EXPLANATION
We are returning to the previous case to look at the second half of the Cost Judge’s decision. Having determined that the bills were statute bills the judge then considered whether there were “special circumstances” which would entitle the claimant…
THE APPELLATE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE APPELLANTS TO RUN A NEW ISSUE : THE ABILITY TO PAY COSTS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY
Here we have a case where the appellants were, initially, allowed to argue a point that had not been argued in the court below. The Court of Appeal was clear in its view that the judge should not have allowed…
SERVICE POINTS 31: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPLY IN TIME TO LIFT A STAY: A RARE SUCCESS ON A CLAIM FORM ISSUE
Here we are looking at an unusual set of facts in relation to service of the claim form, not least because it led to the issues being considered under the Denton criteria and is a (relatively rare) example of a…
HALLUCINATIONS KEEP APPEARING IN THE REPORTS: TWO MORE EXAMPLES: COUNSEL AT FAULT IN BOTH…
We are looking at two more examples of “hallucinated” cases appearing in reported cases. In both cases it was counsel that was presenting the case. (In one case counsel was acting for himself). “The incident does, however, demonstrate vividly the…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A NOTICE DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT: CPR 32.19
Here we look at a case that illustrates a very basic principle of civil procedure and evidence. It is a case where the claimant was, in essence, disputing the authenticity of several documents. However a basic procedural step had not…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 60: FAILING TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE” LEADS TO TRIAL BEING RESTRICTED TO LIABILITY (AND THE CLAIMANT’S FACING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS)
Here we are looking at a failure to plead the claimant’s case as to damages fully. The claimant wanted to advance a claim for “loss of chance” in addition to seeking damages on the balance of probability. The judge rejected…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS OF DRAFTING PLEADINGS: WEBINAR 2nd APRIL 2026
The series on the “Current importance of pleadings” has now reached 59 posts. There are other posts in the series that are imminent. This webinar looks at issues in relation to drafting statements of case. BOOKING DETAILS Are available…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: MORE ABOUT LITIGATORS AND WORKLOAD (IT’S STILL NUTS): MARCH 2016
Here we look at a post from March 2016. It raised some comments at the time and followed on from a previous post we have looked at (which in turn led to several comments). It asks the, fairly fundamental, question…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF HAS ITS OWN LINKEDIN PAGE (“ABOUT TIME TOO” – APPARENTLY)
Civil Litigation Brief now has its own LinkedIn page. It is another way of following the posts on this site. Posts will be posted as they are published and it is another way of being able to keep up to…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 7: HEADING OFF PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET: (WEBINAR THIS THURSDAY 19th MARCH 2026 – WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS)
This short series has aimed to highlight the ongoing difficulties that litigators, in particular, can have with giving compliant costs information to their clients. In looking at this topic it is clear that there are numerous cases where clients have…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 6: YOU SAID IT WOULD COST £2,500 – £3,000 – I’VE PAID YOU £16,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING ESTIMATES AS TO DISBURSEMENTS
This decision emphasises the fact that when giving costs estimates the solicitor should also do their best to estimate the costs of disbursements in addition to their own costs. Here the solicitor mentioned that there would be additional costs if…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE “BEAR TRAP” IN WAITING
The back to basics point today is based on a recent case which shows the importance of serving the particulars of claim within the four month period allowed for service of the claim form. The claimant served the particulars three…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED AFTER CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: “THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCK OUT”
Here we look at the “second half” of the decision considered in the previous post. Having rejected the claimant’s submissions that breaches of a peremptory order should be considered under CPR 3.10 the judge then went on to consider the…
THE BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER IS A SERIOUS MATTER: IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE DEALT WITH UNDER CPR 3.10
Here we look at an interesting, but eventually futile, about the approach the court should take when a party was in breach of a peremptory order. The claimant in breach argued that the court should consider the matter under CPR…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: PLEADINGS SHOULD CONTAIN FACTS NOT ARGUMENT OR RHETORIC: (MARCH 2015)
The issues raised in the Current Importance of Pleadings series are not new. We see points as to pleading raised in March 2015. Here the judge considered a pleading that “leaves much to be desired.” “The overall result of these…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 5: DISCOURAGING THE USE OF A BTE POLICY (THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR THE SOLICITOR…)
We continue with our examination of the Legal Ombudsman’s decisions about costs. The issue here was whether the solicitors were correct to discourage the use of an BTE policy and act privately taking out ATE insurance. “It is expected by…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 4: GOING OUTSIDE THE LEVEL OF LEGAL INSURANCE COVER
Here we are looking at a decision in relation to legal expenses insurance. The solicitor had gone outside the cover of the insurance but not informed the client. The Ombudsman’s conclusions on this issue are not a great surprise… “The…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A CLIENT BLAMES THEIR SOLICITOR FOR ISSUES IN THE WITNESS STATEMENT: SOME EXAMPLES CONSIDERED
Occasionally I give in-house presentations on drafting witness statements. I always emphasise the importance of protecting the client from over-enthusiastic drafting by their lawyer to make sure that the witness statement is accurate and compliant. I then ask what steps…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 3: FAILURE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING
We are continuing with our examination of Legal Ombudsman decisions on issues relating to costs. Here there was an finding of inadequate service because of a failure to consider whether the client had legal insurance that cover the costs involved….
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER: WEBINAR 29th APRIL 2026
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd has sharpened the costs risks faced by claimants who accept a Part 36 offer outside the relevant period. While a claimant who accepts late remains subject to fixed recoverable costs…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: EXHIBITS: A REMINDER OF THE RULES, WHERE THINGS GO WRONG AND HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS
The “exhibiting” of documents to witness statements and affidavits is common. It is surprising how common it is for the exhibit, and the witness statement, to fail to comply with the rules. Here we look at the rules relating to…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 2: POOR COSTS INFORMATION: NOT INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT COSTS UNTIL TWO YEARS INTO THE RETAINER…
We are taking a close look at several Legal Ombudsman decisions in relation to costs, more particularly information about costs in litigation. Here the firm of solicitors did not provide any information about potential costs for a year after being…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD – AND IS IT IMPORTANT? (MARCH 2016)
Here is a post from a decade ago with an issue that remains just as relevant today. What is an appropriate case load for litigators? How do we find the balance between economic survival and overloading, stress and the major…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 1 : WHILST COSTS CAN BE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT THE FIRM SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THEIR PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE…
We continue with our examination of recent Legal Ombudsman decisions in relation to providing estimates of costs in particular. Here we have a finding that the information given as to the costs of litigation was inadequate. “Whilst I appreciate…
THE DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE DANGERS OF TRYING SIMILAR THINGS A SECOND TIME AROUND: “THE HENDERSON AND HUNTER PRINCIPLES APPLY TO INTERLOCUTORY HEARINGS AS MUCH AS TO FINAL HEARINGS”
This is an interesting case on the relevance of the “Henderson” principles to applications, in this case for reverse summary judgment/to strike out the claim. A similar application had been made much earlier in the litigation. The judge found for…
IMPORTANT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: A CLAIM IS BROUGHT WHEN A CLAIM FORM IS SENT TO THE COURT EVEN IF IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CORRECT ISSUE FEE
This Court of Appeal decision today clarifies the position when a claimant files a claim at court but mistakenly does not pay the correct fee. The Court held that the claim was “delivered” when the claim was filed at court….
SERVICE POINTS 29: WOULD THE COURT STRIKE OUT THE ACTION WHEN THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A r. 7.7 NOTICE?
It is unusual to see cases about the operation of CPR 7.7. This rule allows a defendant to serve a notice requiring that a claim form be served. In this case the claimant did not comply and the defendant applied…
THE SECRETARY OF STATE REQUIRED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: “AN APPALLING MANIFESTATION OF A LAX CULTURE OF NON-COMPLIANCE”
For (at least) the third time in recent weeks we are considering defaults or mistakes made on behalf of a Secretary of State. The delays and mistakes here were manifold. The Secretary of State was fortunate in obtaining an extension…
ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF APPLICANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER: (THIS MAY WAKE YOU UP ON A MONDAY MORNING…)
Here we have a case, brought be a professional liquidator, which was struck out because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order as to disclosure. It serves as an object lesson in the need to educate a client…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT
Here we are looking at one of the basic rules for witness statements. Curiously it is ignored in about 40 – 50% of the statements I see in practice. Often the oversight is ignored. Some judges take a hard line….
You must be logged in to post a comment.