CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 54: SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES SHOULD NOT BE WORKS OF FICTION
Anyone drafting anything in the litigation process must remain acutely aware that there is real possibility that the document they are drafting will one day be read by a judge. This is even more likely in relation to a schedule…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 52: THE REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: TO REPLY OR NOT TO REPLY – THAT IS THE QUESTION
Here we take a quick look at the rules and practice directions in relation to filing a Reply and Defence to a Counterclaim. In particular claimants should be very aware of the fact that a defendant can apply to enter…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 46: HOW TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL: HINTS AND TIPS FROM THE INTERNET
There is an ongoing debate going on on Twitter at the moment about “how to instruct counsel”. More particularly the problems caused by “instructions” being sent in a chain of emails (or other electronic communication) with major difficulties in finding…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 43: CROSS EXAMINING EXPERTS: USEFUL GUIDES AND LINKS
Cross-examining experts is possibly one of the most daunting aspects of advocacy. If an advocate gets into a “debate” with an expert then the advocate normally loses. If the advocate is too brutal the cross-examination can backfire, too supine and…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW
In a discussion about the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on Twitter today someone asked if “Notices to Admit Facts” were still available, they had not seen one for a long time. The rules still permit parties to…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different. There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”
In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of “litigation wishful thinking”. Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36 : WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROPOSED DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE
A search term that arrived on this blog earlier today asked “how to you sue a dead person?” The basic answer is that you can’t. You have to sue their executors or administrators. The problem arises when probate has not…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY
The question of witness credibility is often the central issue of most cases that get to trial. Surprisingly it is a matter that barely features in legal education. A knowledge of the factors that a judge will take into account…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 24: THE BANKRUPT CLAIMANT (PERSONAL INJURY LITIGANTS IN PARTICULAR)
I am writing this primarily because of a conversation I had with a law graduate who thought the term “bankruptcy” was a generic term to cover anyone who was hard up. The very basic point about what bankruptcy is, and…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 22: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ADOPTS ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD
This post follows on from the previous post in relation to pleading the Defendant’s case in the alternative. Here we are looking at cases where a defendant pleads allegations of negligence and the claimant uses those allegations as allegations against the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 21: PLEADING IN THE ALTERNATIVE: BINKS -v- SECURICOR
Can a claimant plead two alternative cases? This is an issue that often arises in personal injury litigation, where the basic facts are disputed. A claimant may wish to argue that the defendant remains liable – even on the defendant’s…
BACK TO BASICS 14: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR
In the case I wrote about yesterday, Higgins & Ors v TLT LLP [2017] EWHC 3868 (Ch), the very basic errors made by the claimant’s solicitor in relation to service of the claim form were held to amount to “misconduct” (albeit in…
BACK TO BASICS 19: COSTS BUDGETING WHEN CASE IS MORE THAN £25,000 BUT LESS THAN £50,000
There are special rules governing budgets in cases where the claimant claims more than £25,000 but less than £50,000. Firstly the budget has to be filed much earlier. Secondly the budget “must” only be the first page of Precedent H….
BACK TO BASICS 17: WHEN SHOULD A COST BUDGET BE FILED: WHERE THINGS GO WRONG
This may appear very basic. However I have seen both sides falling foul of this very recently. In particular the fact that the budget has to be filed with the directions questionnaire when the claim is limited to £50,000. THE…
BACK TO BASICS 16: COSTS BUDGETING: THE GUIDANCE NOTES ON PRECEDENT H
There is much written about the process of costs budgeting. There is much to be said, when preparing for a hearing – and often at the hearing itself, looking at the Practice Direction and Guidance Notes. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 13: WHAT IS MEANT BY WITNESS “CREDIBILITY”? WHY THIS IS OFTEN CENTRAL TO A LITIGATOR’S WORK
Many civil cases turn on witness credibility, yet very little training and education is given to lawyers about assessing credibility. Every litigator has to be able to make an assessment of this when taking a case on; before issuing proceedings…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL
Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything. Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”. Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…
CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”
There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY
It is surprising how many witness statements I have read (both in practice and in the reports) that contain invective material. Litigants appear to think it important, and effective, that they disparage their opponents. Litigants should be warned that this…