WEBINARS ON LAW, PROCEDURE AND DAMAGES: READ ALL ABOUT THEM…
Since lockdown has made giving live presentations impossible I have been involved in presenting a number of webinars. This would seem a good time to set them out. Those that have been given earlier this year are still available on…
THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES 80: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Two years on this is a good time to recap on…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 79: NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE OTHER SIDE’S WITNESS STATEMENT
Today we are looking at CPR 32.12. The rule preventing a party using the other side’s witness statements for purposes other than the action they were served in. THE RULE Use of witness statements for other purposes 32.12 (1) Except…
OPINION EVIDENCE AND DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED AT TRIAL
In Harlow -v- Aspect Contracts Ltd [2020] EWHC 1488 (TCC) Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a High Court judge) allowed an application preventing the defendant relying on a witness statement that was, in reality, an attempt to give expert evidence. …
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – MAY 2020
As we adjust to the problems of the pandemic some of the more conventional issues of litigation have been dealt with extensively this month. Costs ACL Trio of High Court judges issue costs penalties to defendants that refused ADR ACL Claimant not…
LATE WITNESS STATEMENT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED: A WARNING AGAINST COMPLACENCY
Anyone who has had the pleasure of hearing Professor Dominic Regan lecture will know that he gives a constant warning that the Denton principles have not gone away. In relation to the late service of budgets in particular, but in…
AFFIDAVITS, COMPULSION, EXHIBITS AND THE IMPLIED DUTY NOT TO DISCLOSE TO THIRD PARTIES: HIGH COURT DECISION
I am grateful to barrister Sarah Walker for sending me a copy of the judgment of Deputy Insolvencies and Companies Court Judge Kyriakides in the Official Receiver -v- Skeene & Bowers [2020] EWHC 1252. It concerned the issue of whether…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: CLAIMANT SURVIVES “BY THE SKIN OF THEIR TEETH”: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS TO LEARN HERE
Every year brings its own crop of service of the claim form cases. This year is no different. In Oran Environmental Solutions Ltd & Anor v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1271 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill observed…
CORONAVIRUS CATCH UP 1: DENTON AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
I have, recently, been writing primarily about the impact of coronavirus on lawyers and civil procedure. Some cases in “mainstream” civil litigation have been overlooked. To prevent a “backlog” of cases here is a link to, and brief summary of,…
ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTIONS: POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS
There have been amendments to Practice Direction 51Z. These provide exceptions to the total ban on possession proceedings. THE AMENDMENTS: 120th UPDATE – PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS “The amendments to Practice Direction 51Z supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 are…
THE OTHER IMPORTANT RULE CHANGE TODAY IN RELATION TO WITNESS STATEMENTS: AND, HONESTLY, THIS COULDN’T HAVE COME AT A BETTER TIME
Along with changes to the statement of truth the rule changes effective from today now impose a further obligation in relation to witness statements. I have written about this before (but much has happened since). THE NEW RULES From…
THE NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION: THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO EXTEND TIME BY AGREEMENT AND MAKING AN APPLICATION
Although it is welcome the new Practice direction is a bit disappointing. It does not trust litigators at all (or not very much). Parties can agree extensions of up to 56 days, without permission of the Court, but not beyond…
CLAIMANT BEATS OWN PART 36 OFFER: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD BECAUSE OF ITS CONDUCT
I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for drawing my attention to the decision today of Mr Justice Griffiths in DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 670 (QB). The defendant was ordered to pay indemnity…
GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: NOT A MERE TECHNICALITY: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULES CAN HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES
This blog has dealt, many times, with the difficulties that can arise when a solicitor makes a witness statement in support of an interlocutory application. Not least there is a duty to give details of the source of information and…
CIVIL LITIGATION IN A TIME OF TOTAL UNCERTAINTY: 10 KEY POINTS ON DIFFICULTIES ARISING OUT OF THE CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK
I cannot recall a time when matters were so rife with uncertainty. By request I have been asked to consider practical steps litigators can take. Equally significantly we have to consider what steps the courts, and the Rules Committee, should…
OUT OF TIME APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS UNDERLYING MERITS: DENTON CONSIDERED
For the second time in two days I am writing about a relief from sanctions case where the court took into account the merits of the underlying case. Yesterday relief was refused because the court held that the case had…
THAT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL IN A DEFENCE: THE KEY CASES CONSIDERED
The discussion yesterday of the decision in Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB) gives rise to review cases on pleading a defence, in particular the important distinction between a “denial” and a “non-admission”. It is…
SERVING PROCEEDINGS: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSE GOOSE’S APPEAL : THE DANGERS OF OVERLOOKING THE BASIC OBLIGATION TO SERVE
In Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons [2020] EWCA Civ 303 the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision not to grant the claimant any kind of relief due to a failure to properly serve the…
JUDGE WAS CORRECT TO STRIKE OUT ACTION AGAINST NON-EXISTENT COMPANY: ALSO GUIDANCE FOR INSURERS ON MOST PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION
In the judgment in Cowley v LW Carlisle & Company Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 227 today the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against an order striking out his claim against one defendant. At the time the striking out…
MORE RULE CHANGES IN APRIL: CHANGES TO THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED…
We are returning to the 113th update to Practice Direction Amendments. This introduces important changes to to the wording of the statement of truth. (Coming into force from the 6th April 2020). THE AMENDMENT The amendment makes changes to the…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE: PLEADING SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE HIRE OF A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE
The 113th update to Practice Direction Amendments comes into force on the 6th April 2020. It introduces new, and quite specific, obligations on a claimant claiming the cost of a replacement hire vehicle. THE NEW RULE There is a new Paragraph…
WITNESS STATEMENT SERVED 28 DAYS LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: ACTION STRUCK OUT: THE PERILS OF DELIBERATELY NOT COMPLYING WITH DIRECTIONS
I am grateful to barrister Andrew Worthley for drawing my attention to, and sending me a note of the decision in Syed -v- Shah [2020] 2 WLUK 15 where Trower J upheld a decision not to grant a claimant relief…
NEW RULES ON ENTERING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHERE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR DEFENCE IS FILED LATE
We have looked several times at the cases (sometimes conflicting cases) about whether a defence can be filed late. In some cases it has been held that a claimant faced with a late defence can enter default judgment even when…
JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
We are looking again at the decision of HHJ Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Molavi v Hibbert & Ors [2020] EWHC, this time relating to the principles to be considered in relation to joinder of additional parties….
JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES INTO EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 1: NOTIFY THE EXISTING PARTIES: THE RULES DON’T SAY SO BUT COMMON SENSE DOES
There are a few interesting procedural matters that flow from the decision of HHJ Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Molavi v Hibbert & Ors [2020] EWHC 121 (Ch). Here we look at the judge’s comments on…
FAILING TO TURN UP TO A TRIAL: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION REFUSED: CPR 39.3(3) CONSIDERED
This blog has looked several times at the issues relating to CPR 39.3(3), the rule that governs an application when a party fails to attend a trial or hearing. The rule was considered by Mrs Justice Lambert in KD v…
ARGUMENT THAT FIXED COSTS APPLIED GETS A BUMPY RIDE: PROTOCOL DOES NOT APPLY TO HIGHWAYS CASE
I am grateful to barrister James Bentley for drawing my attention to the judgment in Bateman v Devon County Council (HHJ Mitchell, Plymouth County Court, 2nd September 2019) in which it was decided that fixed costs did not apply to a…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 77: THE COURT MUST KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4(2)
CPR 35.4(2) is often overlooked. This rule imposes a duty on a party applying for permission to rely on expert evidence to inform the court how much the expert is likely to cost. This is often clear at the costs…
APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: 10 KEY POINTS
We are now nearly six years on from the Denton decision and the principles are familiar to most litigators. However applications for relief from sanctions are still a regular occurrence. Success is never guaranteed. Here I want to look again at…
ATTEMPTING TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN EVIDENCE: SHOULD THE TWAIN EVER MEET?
The recent post on the Post Office case and the defendant’s attempts to introduce new evidence at the submissions stage has caused me to revisit a post from several years ago. This was, in turn, caused by a recollection of…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR (NOT THE FIRST TIME I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS AND PROBABLY NOT THE LAST…)
Every so often, but sometimes I think not often enough, I write posts on the dangers relating to service of the claim form. Here is a quick reminder about the basic principles of serving on a solicitor. This post has…
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – DECEMBER 2019
Links and articles to blog posts and articles available online from December 2019. Costs Costs Barrister Cash flow and catastrophic personal injury litigation Costs Barrister Fixed costs and translation fees Association for Costs Lawyers Court can order costs in foreign…
THE COURT WILL NOT READILY IMPLY SANCTIONS INTO ORDERS THAT DO NOT EXPRESSLY CONTAIN SANCTIONS: AN EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR LITIGATORS
In Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors [2019] EWHC 3342 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh held that a party did not require relief from sanctions when it failed to comply with a court order that did not impose a…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE THE YEAR IN REVIEW: PART 36: THE GROWTH IN CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFERS – AND WHY THE CONSEQUENCES USUALLY APPLY
Looking back it is clear that this has been a very busy year for cases on Part 36. Part of the reason for this has been the growth in cases relating to claimant’s offers. There are a number of key…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 74: HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND SECTION 4 OF THE CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1995
The judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Barnaby & Anor v Johnson (aka Smith) [2019] EWHC 3344 (Ch) provides a reminder of the terms of Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and an example of its application. …
CORRECT INTEREST RATE ON COSTS WHEN CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: TRIAL JUDGE WAS ENTITLED TO AWARD 10% OVER BASE
There are several interesting aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Saini in Essex County Council & Ors v Davies & Ors [2019] EWHC 3443. Here I want to look at the part of the judgment that deals with the…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN DEFENDANT FILES AN INADEQUATE PLEADING
The Denton principles were considered in an unusual context by Mr Justice Julian Knowles in Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB). THE CASE The claimant is a Circuit Judge. He brought an action for harassment against the defendant….
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT…)
Another certainty about writing about civil procedure is that every year will bring a batch of applications relating to sanctions and relief from sanctions. This year has been no different. We start off (from the end of last year) with…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (2): SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM (AND ALLIED ISSUES)
The one “certainty” about writing about civil procedure is that every year there will be a few (often more than few)cases about service of the claim form. This is always a fruitful source of difficulty for claimants. The causes of…
PART 36: A SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT CAN BE BULLISH: CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN PART 36 OFFER AND THERE WAS NOTHING UNJUST IN THE DEFENDANT PAYING THE PRICE
In Kivells Ltd v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 3210 (TCC) the claimant beat its own Part 36 offer (by a fair margin). HHJ Russen QC rejected the defendant’s argument that it would be unjust to apply the normal Part…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 73: THE AUTOMATIC STAY
CPR 15,11(2) provides for an automatic stay if nothing happens in an action for six months after service. This is a rule that can be overlooked. THE RULE CPR rule 15.11. Sub-paragraph (1) of that rule provides that: “Where…
IS A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT? WELL, IT DEPENDS… (& IT HAS CONSEQUENCES)
In Healys LLP v Partridge & Anor [2019] EWHC 2471 (Ch) Kelyn Bacon QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the issue of whether a conditional fee agreement was a contentious business agreement. This has practical consequences in…
NO SECOND BITE OF A CHERRY AFTER A TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS JUDGE’S DECISION
In L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor v Liqwd Inc & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1943 the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s decision not to admit new evidence that a defendant attempted to introduce after judgment was handed down….
LAWYERS: JUDGES SO WANT TO SEE ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE (AND TO BE TOLD ABOUT IT AS WELL…): MASTER’S POINT OF PRACTICE WORTH READING
There are some observations in the judgment of Master Thornett in Palizban v Protech (UK) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3090 (QB) that every litigator should read. It relates to the manner in which solicitors present witness statements, and documents, in interlocutory…
SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND THE “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY CLAIMANT”: THE TRAP OPERATED AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED
The judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in Maggistro-Contenta & Anor v O’Shea & Anor [2019] EWHC 3035 (Ch) is a prime example of difficulties being caused because of a mistake in relation to the rules relating to service. It…
ANONYMOUS LITIGANT REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: “ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MILITATE AGAINST GRANTING THE CLAIMANT RELIEF”
In ABC v Google LLC [2019] EWHC 3020 (QB) Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini refused an (anonymous) claimants application for relief from sanctions. The case has some unusual features, however it does highlight the point that a relief from sanctions application…
STAGE 3 PROCEEDINGS AND LATE SERVICE OF EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal yesterday in Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2019] EWCA Civ 1934 is an important one in relation to late service of evidence and Stage 3 of the Protocol. It shows the importance…
COURT IN THE MIDDLE? CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL AID: JUDGE EMPHASISES THE COMPLEX MESS ABOUT FUNDING
There have been concerns in the past about the way in which civil committal proceedings are carried out. A guide to the careful approach needed is shown in the judgment of Chamberlain J in The All England Lawn Tennis Club…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: CANDOUR FROM THE APPLICANT AND NO EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE PREJUDICE
There is a report of a case where relief from sanctions was granted in Anglia Autoflow North America LLC and Another v Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2019] Costs LR 155. One thing that marks this case is the total candour from the…
THE RIDICULOUS RULES ABOUT PLEADING MITIGATION OF LOSS: DOES THE RULES COMMITTEE JUST NOT LISTEN (OR JUST NOT CARE)?
The previous post in this case on the judgment in Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd & Anor v Muhammad Ali Junaid Food Trends Ltd (Now Dissolved) & Ors[2019] EWHC 2769 (QB) highlights the problems posed by one of the most ridiculous rules…
You must be logged in to post a comment.