PART 36 DOES NOT APPLY TO SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENTS: HIGH COURT DECISION (YESTERDAY)
In Zuhri v Vardags Ltd [2023] EWHC 3050 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard held that the provisions of CPR Part 36 do not apply to a Solicitors Act assessment of costs. However it may be relevant to Part 7 proceedings issued,…
COST BITES 124 : EARLY VIEW AS TO VALUE OF A PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS NOT UNREASONABLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED
I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sadiq in Drury -v- Yorkshire Aggregates Limited (a decision made in January this year, but the transcript has only just become available). It…
APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THREE MONTHS DELAY IS NOT “PROMPT”: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND A DRAFT DEFENCE DID NOT HELP
In Pincus v Singh & Anor [2023] EWHC 2997 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews refused a defendant’s application to set aside a default judgment. The defendant had waited for three months before making the application. There was no evidence in support…
COST BITES 123: COSTS OF BUDGETING REDUCED BY 25% TO REFLECT CLAIMANT’S UNREALISTIC BUDGET
In Reid v Wye Valley NHS Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 2843 (KB) Master Brown reduced the recoverable costs of budgeting by 25% to reflect the unrealistic nature of the claimant’s budget. There are important issues here for those who…
“PLEADINGS ARE INTENDED TO IDENTIFY THE ISSUES, NOT OBSCURE THEM”: COMMENTS ON STATEMENTS OF CASE: THEY SHOULD PROVIDE LIGHT NOT DARKNESS
There have been a number of cases recently where judges have commented on the state of the pleadings. We see observations being made by Mr Justice Ritchie in the decision today in DMH Electrical (UK) Ltd v MK City Group…
COURT REFUSES TO GRANT AN ORDER FOR A GROUP LITIGATION ORDER: INCORRECT PROCEDURE; COSTS AND “WHACK -A-MOLE” CONSIDERED
Several kind people have sent me a copy of the decision in Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 2839 (KB). This is an unusual case because, despite the claimant and defendant being in agreement, the court did…
COST BITES 120: QOCS AND HIRE CHARGES: DECISION THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD PAY COSTS OUTSIDE QOCS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
In Amjad v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 2832 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie overturned a decision that the QOCS cap should be lifted in relation to a claimant who had failed to beat the defendant’s Part 36 offer and who…
COST BITES 117: THE COURT CAN ORDER A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS WHERE THE SCHEDULE IS HIGH BUT NOT EXCESSIVE
In South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Ltd & Anor (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2270 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected an argument that a payment of account should not be made because the schedule in support was…
A SECOND ACTION ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE TO THE FIRST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL NOT TOO KEEN ON “SHADOW BOXING” IN CIVIL LITIGATION
In Orji & Anor v Nagra & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1289 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that an action should be struck out as an abuse of process. The Court rejected the defendant’s contention that the action…
PROVING THINGS 234: REMOTE EVIDENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION: PARTY CALLING WITNESSES HITS A PROBLEM
The judgment of Deputy District Judge Batstone in Amanda Seafood PTE Ltd v Sykes Seafood Ltd [2023] EW Misc 13 (CC) illustrates the care that needs to be taken when attempting to call a witness who is giving evidence remotely…
THE “SLIP RULE” CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: ALSO THE COURT’S INHERENT POWERS TO VARY ITS ORDERS (APPLICANT UNSUCCESSFUL ON BOTH COUNTS…)
The “slip rule” in civil procedure is often mentioned, but rarely considered at length. There is a detailed consideration of the rule and relevant authorities in the judgment of Mr Justice Henshaw in Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc…
WINDING UP PETITION NEEDS TO BE ISSUED IN LOCAL COURT: TYNE FOR PETITIONERS TO CHANGE THEIR PRACTICES
In The One Collection Real Estate Ltd v Insolvency & Law Ltd [2023] EWHC 2673 (Ch). HHJ Kramer held that a winding up petition should be issued and heard in the circuit that has closest links to the case. A block policy…
CLAIMANTS NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT ASSIST THE COURT IN ITS TASK (WITH A FEW OTHER REASONS)
In Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) Master Stevens rejected the claimants’ application to call an expert. The judge contains a detailed consideration of the law and authorities relating to the court’s discretion…
WANT TO OBTAIN AN ORDER AFTER RECEIVING A DRAFT JUDGMENT? BETTER READ THIS
I have been kindly sent a message from Tim Lord KC which sets out observations made by Miles J in relation to Practice Direction 40E., in particular 4.4.. The Practice Direction deals with the handing down of judgments. 4.4. imposes…
WEBINAR ON DRAFTING SCHEDULES IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: 9th NOVEMBER 2023
I am presenting a webinar on drafting Schedules on the 9th November 2023. Booking details are available here. “In the event, the Original Schedules of Loss were shown to be quite unreliable and, in many respects, bore little or no relation…
FIXED COSTS: LONDON WEIGHTING (AN EXTRA 12.5%): BUT – WHERE IS LONDON?
The fixed costs provisions provide a “London Weighting” of an additional 12.5%. “London” has a specific meaning as defined in the Practice Direction set out below. CPR 45.3 Additional costs for work in specified areas (‘London weighting’) 45.3.—(1) Where…
FIXED COSTS: THE COURT MAY CONSIDER A HIGHER SUM IF A PARTY OR WITNESS IS “VULNERABLE”
The rules make provision allowing the court to award a higher sum for damages when a party, or witness is vulnerable. However there are significant caveats. It must be the vulnerability that has required additional work to be undertaken and the…
FIXED RECOVERABLE COSTS: A POWER TO ORDER GREATER AMOUNTS IN “EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES” AND THE STING IN THE TAIL
Continuing the examination of fixed recoverable costs. CPR 45.9 gives the court power to order sums greater than FRC in “exceptional circumstances”. The applicant’s difficulties are (i) there is no definition of exceptional circumstances (ii) there is a real sting…
FIXED COSTS AND PART 36: THE 35% GAIN IF A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN OFFER
The new rules introduce a fixed percentage as an “additional liability” in cases where a case is subject to fixed costs and a case has Part 36 costs consequences. Where a claimant has beaten their own offer and, normally, an…
TODAY’S THE DAY: KEY POSTS AND ARTICLES ON FIXED COSTS
I suspect that this blog will be writing about fixed costs for some time to come. To mark (I won’t say “celebrate”) the start of the new regime I have done a round up previous posts, useful lectures and webinars…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 99: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF A WITNESS STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
The purpose of this series is to look at the most basic elements of civil procedure. One, very common, omission practitioners make is to fail to follow the mandatory requirements of Practice Direction 32 in relation to the information on…
PROVING THINGS 232: CAR FIRES AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHY EXPERTS SHOULD MIND THEIR LANGUAGE: A MOVE FROM “MUST” TO “MORE THAN PROBABLE” REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Nash v Volskwagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2326 (KB) contains important observations in relation to the law and evidence relating to causation. However I want to look at the judge’s consideration…
NEW COSTS RULES: WHEN A CASE CAN’T GO INTO THE INTERMEDIATE TRACK
Continuing with the series about the new rules relating to fixed costs. Here we recap on those cases that are not affected by the rules (because of the commencement date) and those issues that must be allocated to the multi-track….
NEW FIXED COSTS RULES: WHEN IS A CASE ALLOCATED TO THE INTERMEDIATE TRACK?
The new rules introduce the “intermediate track”. Here we look at the factors that lead to allocation to that track. From the 1st October 2023 we have a new CPR 26.9. The small claims track remains. The fast track is…
NEW FIXED COSTS RULES: THE NEW PART 28: CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERMEDIATE TRACK: THE LENGTH OF WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT REPORTS
The new fixed costs provisions introduce the concept of the “Intermediate Track”. One point to note about this track is that there are specific rules about applying for directions. There are also very specific obligations in relation to the length…
PRACTICE DIRECTION CHANGES PUBLISHED YESTERDAY: CAME INTO FORCE 40 MINUTES AGO… CHANGES TO THE ONLINE CIVIL CLAIMS PILOT
The 159th update – Practice Direction Amendments was published yesterday and came into force at 11.00 today. (I am told that this is an improvement over some previous amendments which came into force before they were published). THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The update…
NEW RULES AS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT: COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1st OCTOBER 2023: NEW CPR 24
“New” rules as to summary judgment come into force on the 1st October 2023. These are part of the process of “simplifying” the rules. The rules are introduced by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2023 THE NEW RULES “PART…
PART 36 APPLIES TO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY: SILENCE DID NOT INDICATE A REFUSAL TO ENTER ADR: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLIED
In Jones v Tracey & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2256 (Ch) Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) found that Part 36 applied to cases that were not about money. It was held that the fact that the action would be…
THE NEW RULES ON FIXED COSTS: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: THEY CANNOT AFFECT CURRENT CASES
I was at a social event on Friday night (but a blogger is never really off duty). During the course of the evening someone told me that they had had recently had a personal injury case where the judge, rather…
DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: “THE SCHEDULE WAS A FICTION … THE POINT WAS RECOGNISED ON BEHALF OF BOTH CLAIMANTS”: SELECTED QUOTES (AND A WEBINAR)
The the judgment of Costs Judge James in HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2118 (SCCO) is one of a long series of cases where judges have been critical of the way in which schedules of damages have been…
THE COVER UP IS INVARIABLY WORSE THAN THE ERROR: WHAT TO DO WHEN MISTAKES ARE MADE
The post earlier this week based on the article by the Honourable Joseph Quinn led to to look in detail at one point made – that of avoiding a “cover up” and acting immediately to deal with mistakes. This led…
COST BITES 96: A “REPLACEMENT” BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED
In Henderson and Jones Ltd v Stargunter Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1849 (TCC) Neil Moody KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered whether a formal application for relief from sanctions was needed in a case where a party…
JUST LET GO: COURTS CANNOT FORCE A LITIGATION FRIEND TO KEEP ON ACTING: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Major v Kirishana [2023] EWHC 1593 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter allowed an appeal in which a judge had refused a Litigation Friend’s application to terminate their appointment. The judgment makes it clear that there will be very few circumstances…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM ISSUE: NO SEAL NO CASE: “SERVICE MEANS HAVING A SEALED CLAIM FORM IN HAND WHICH CAN BE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENDANT”
In Clewer v Higgs & Sons (a firm) [2023] EWHC 1556 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson upheld a decision that the claimants had failed to serve a claim form properly. The judge held that the requirement to serve a sealed…
CLAIMANTS COME TO GRIEF OVER SERVICE OF UNSEALED CLAIM FORM: COURT OF APPEAL HOLD THAT CPR 3.10 APPLIES TO DEFENDANT’S MISCARACTERISED APPLICATION
It is rarely possible to get to the end of a month without some kind of discussion on this blog about service of the claim form. This month is no exception. In Pitalia & Anor v NHS England [2023] EWCA…
ON THIS BLOG 10 YEARS AGO: PART 36; INTERIM PAYMENTS AND SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”
Now that the blog is 10 years (and 2 days) old it gives me an opportunity to look back at previous posts in a way that remains useful. Some (but not all) of the posts over the past decade stand…
3,450 CLAIMANTS CAN USE THE SAME CLAIM FORM: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION ON CPR 7.3.
I am grateful to David Platt KC for sending me a copy of the decision of the Divisional Court in Abbott -v- Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB). The Court overturned a previous decision of a Master and allowed…
PROVING THINGS 227: IF YOU ARE GOING TO ALLEGE THAT LAWYERS WERE NEGLIGENT IN NOT CALLING EVIDENCE THEN YOU REALLY SHOULD REALLY HAVE THAT EVIDENCE TO HAND
The decision in Murithi & Ors v AVH Legal LLP (t/a Tandem Law) & Ors [2023] EWHC 1245 (KB) has in some ways a profound irony. A case alleging negligence by lawyers for failing to call evidence itself failed because…
RULE CHANGES ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2023: FIXED RECOVERABLE COSTS AND ALL THAT: LOOKING AHEAD – A QUICK GLANCE AT THE PRIMARY SOURCES
The rules introducing the “Intermediate Track” for cases between £25,000 and £100,000 are now published, they come into force on the 1st October 2023. There are links to the source material below. A more detailed guide to the changes will…
APPEALS, BUNDLES AND “SPEAKING NOTES”: BUNDLES(INCLUDING PAGE NUMBERING) GO AWRY: A “SPEAKING NOTE” IS NOT TO BE USED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SKELETON ARGUMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Masih & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 1280 (KB) contains many matters of interest in relation to the conduct of the trial and appeal. Here we look at two aspects:…
THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO STRIKE OUT A PROPERLY PLEADED CLAIM IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE: JUDGE’S SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO DEAL WITH APPLICATIONS TO STRIKE OUT WHICH ARE, IN REALITY, APPLICATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Choudhury in Kasongo v CRBE Ltd & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 557 demonstrates the danger when a defendant makes an application to strike out a statement of case. The judge allowed an appeal where a…
THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (3): EMBARGOED JUDGMENTS – DON’T DISCLOSE EARLY TO ANYONE (LET ALONE THE LAWYER’S PR TEAM…)
The new guide has extended the section on embargoed judgments. This makes it absolutely clear that the disclosure of judgments to third parties (for example the lawyers’ PR teams) for the purpose of preparing a press release to publicise the…
COST BITES 83: DEFENDANT SERVING BUDGET LATE SCRAPES HOME IN A “BORDERLINE” CASE
In K/S Mountain Invest v Ducat Maritime Ltd [2023] EWHC 939 (Comm) HHJ Keyser KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) granted the defendant relief from sanctions following the late filing of its costs budget. The defendant was, perhaps, fortunate….
THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
A new edition of the King’s Bench Division Guide was published last week (although it is dated March 2023). I will take a short look at the major changes. Firstly looking at a new passage in relation to the instruction…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 96: PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE APPLICATION TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGE HAS TO BE MADE AT THE INITIAL HEARING (OR ADJOURNMENT THEREOF)
The judgment of HHJ Pelling in FG Financing Ltd & Anor v Lagun [2023] EWHC 126 (Comm) serves as a useful reminder of the limited period of time available to make an application to the first-instance judge for permission to…
“IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY”: A BATCH OF SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: A CHANCE TO REVIEW (OR REMINISCE..)
The Court of Appeal judgment in Cranfield & Anor v Bridgegrove Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 656 was given 20 years ago today. One of the aims of that judgment was to clarify issues relating to service of the claim form…
AMENDMENT, COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS AND THE DENTON CRITERIA: THERE IS NO HALFWAY HOUSE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
There are so many judgments dealing with the issue of late amendment that, as I have stated before, I often do not write about them – each being fact specific. However the Court of Appeal judgment in CNM Estates (Tolworth…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 95: ACCEPTING A PART 36 OFFER WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DEFENDANT
This post arises out of an interesting question I was asked in a recent webinar on Part 36.* The questioner asked wanted to accept a Part 36 offer by one defendant and continue the action against others. The situation here…
ANOTHER CHANGE IN THE RULES ON APRIL 6th: PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS CAN SAY GOODBYE (IN SOME CASES) TO THE ADMIRALTY COURT
The focus on the new rules on QOCS coming into force on the 6th April may lead to losing sight of some other changes. In particular the new rules and amendments to the Practice Direction in relation to accidents at…
THE NEW RULES ON QOCS FROM APRIL 6th: OMNIBUS EDITION
The new rules on QOCS come into force on the 6th April. Here is a review of the key points as to issue, the consequences and links to useful commentary. WHEN THE RULES COME INTO FORCE The key date…
You must be logged in to post a comment.