IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED…
We have had a flurry of cases recently about the consequences of failing to pay the correct fee when issuing proceedings. Here we have a case where the court considers the implications of a failure to pay the correct fee…
SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH – AND BY THE WAY – AS IT TURNS OUT – THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE
Is service on a P.O. Box address good service? That was the issue being considered in this appeal. However the claimant was in for a bit of a shock. Enquiries by the judge revealed that the claim form had never…
COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 4: WHY IS PD57AC BREACHED SO OFTEN? “SOLICITORS MIGHT FEEL UNDER PRESSURE TO SIGN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE … EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THAT STATEMENTS WERE NOT COMPLIANT…”
There has a been a regular flow of cases where the courts have commented that PD57AC has not been complied with, it is “more honoured in the breach than the observance”, was noted in one judgment. Given that these are…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST…
Here we are looking at a basic requirement that is often overlooked. When a party is applying for permission to rely on expert evidence there is a mandatory obligation to provide the court with an estimate of costs. THE…
COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
It is useful to remember why the strictures in PSD57AC were introduced. It followed the report of the Witness Evidence Working Group which was produced at the end of 2019. That report highlighted some major issues in relation to the…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
It is surprising how many allegations of negligence are made against lawyers because of a failure to consider and obtain damages for loss of earnings. In addition there are a growing number of cases where claimants have come to grief…
SERVICE POINTS 36 : “THIS IS AN AREA OF UNDOUBTED STRICTNESS”: ERRORS IN SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM WERE FATAL TO THE CLAIM
Regular readers of this site will not need reminding of the strictness of the rules relating to service of the claim form. Here we have another example. The claimant failed to serve the sealed claim form within the period allowed…
COST BITES 377: THE COURT WOULD NOT STAY A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT PENDING THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL AND/OR APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO SET OFF THEIR OWN COSTS (WHY WHAT IS TAKEN OUT OF DRAFT ORDER CAN BE AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT IS LEFT IN…)
Here we have an unusual issue, caused by the defendant agreeing to an unusual order (more accurately the removal of a proposed term of an order). The defendant was liable to pay the claimant’s costs of a hearing which were…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP AGAIN (GUESS THE REASON…): YOUR STATEMENTS DID COMPLY WITH PD57AC SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO IGNORE THE ERRANT PARTS
Here we have (yet another) case about a failure to comply with PD57AC. The response of the defendants here was simply to state that they would not cross-examine the claimants’ witnesses on material that was irrelevant or inadmissible. “I was…
SERVICE POINTS 35: HOT OFF THE PRESS: THE HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INITIAL FINDING THAT AN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RE-SEALED PRIOR TO SERVICE
The cases on service of the claim form continue to flow. Here the defendant appealed a decision that it was not necessary for a claimant to serve a sealed copy of an amended claim form. As we shall see the…
EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
The previous post on costs and mediation led to me to look at the initial judgment on liability. This is because the court considered an argument that the situation with the claimant’s expert was so poor as to warrant indemnity…
AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
Here we have a case where an important time limit was, on the face of it missed, because the court itself “thwarted” genuine attempts to lodge an appeal in time. It is an object lesson the care that needs to…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
Here we look at at post from twelve years ago concerning judicial protestations about opinion evidence in witness statements. Despite all the warnings have occurred since, and the advent of PD57AC, this remains a regular (and improper) occurrence. We looked…
“OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS
We have seen many cases where the courts have been critical of a party’s failure to comply with the duties of full and frank disclosure when obtaining an order without notice. However here we have a case where the judge…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC WAS FIVE YEARS OLD THIS MONTH – STILL GUIDANCE IS NEEDED
The Business and Property Courts – The Commercial Court Report 2024-2025 makes interesting reading. It notes that PD57AC came into force some five years ago. It still shows the need to emphasise that the Practice Direction needs to be complied…
CIVIL EVIDENCE: “BARE ASSERTIONS” ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED DEBT NOR WILL “VAGUE AND UNPARTICULARISED” EVIDENCE
This case serves as a reminder that, if a debt is to be disputed, then the evidence in support of the denial has to be particularised and credible. Here the respondents faced a debt of £920,000. There was an attempt…
A REMINDER – DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
We are just looking at a few lines from a judgment we looked at earlier this morning. They contain a reminder that documents in an agreed bundle are admissible as evidence at the hearing. However this does not mean that…
MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
One remarkable aspect of the Mazur decision is that in a very real sense it is the losers of the case who get to decide what goes on going forward. The Court of Appeal rejected the submissions of the Law Society…
AN “EXTERNAL” REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
We have, for many years now, been looking at the way in which the courts consider the admissibility of reports prepared for related purposes. We have that issue considered in this case. A report was obtained in relation to allegations…
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
This is an interesting judgement on two levels. Firstly the judge did not accept the defendant’s contention that there had been an agreement to extend time for service of Points of Dispute to a bill of costs. Secondly, applying the…
MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
One underlying irony about the Mazur debacle is that most of the problems arise because of a mistake as to costs. The Circuit Judge ordered Ms. Mazur and Mr Stuart £10,653 when, in fact, the costs should only have been £636.00. …
WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
In this case a wasted costs order was made against a firm of solicitors for breach of warranty of authority. The stated to the defendant and the court, and believed, that they were instructed by the claimant’s insurers when, in…
SERVICE POINTS 33: COURT MADE AN ORDER FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE ON A RUSSIAN COMPANY’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
Here was have a successful application for alternative service on the defendant’s legal representatives. It shows that in some circumstances the courts are willing to make such orders, particularly when the defendant is based abroad and there are potential issues…
SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
For many years now we have been looking at the interaction between an application to set aside a default judgment and the “Denton” criteria. Here we look at another case where the court considered relief from sanctions in this context. …
THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
Here we consider some unusual grounds of appeal. An unsuccessful claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had erred in giving leeway to the defendant who was a litigant in person. What is important here is that…
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 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…
MAXIMISING RECOVERY IN INTER PARTIES COSTS: THE ROLE OF THE FEE EARNER: WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026: 12.00 pm: TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU OBTAIN MAXIMUM RECOVERY ON ASSESSMENT
This webinar examines the crucial role of the fee earner in maximising the recovery of legal costs. Many litigators have limited experience of detailed assessments and may be unaware of the challenges that can arise during the process. The session…
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 MATTERS 54: THINGS WE STILL DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO (1) WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? THE COURT DID NOT SUPPLY AN “EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION”
The judgment given yesterday still leaves us with many uncertainties and litigators still need to tread with some care. Here we look at one of the matters that the Court of Appeal was not able to give a definitive answer…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COURT STRIKES OUT PARTS OF DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT AS NON COMPLIANT WITH PD57AC (AND THE DEFENDANT IS A BARRISTER…)
This case adds to the growing number of cases where the courts have considered whether a witness statement breaches PD 57AC and the consequences for breach. The defendant’s initial statement contained numerous breaches of PD57. A revised statement was more…
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…
PROVING THINGS 285: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: “IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH QOCS TO EXTEND IT TO CLAIMANTS WHO KNOWINGLY TELL UNTRUTHS ABOUT SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO THEIR CLAIM…”
This is a judgment on fundamental dishonesty where the judge considers, in some detail, the burden of proof and what a defendant needs to establish. There are important observations about the burden of proof and consideration of the term “dishonesty”…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 65: THE REASON WHY PLEADINGS ARE IMPORTANT IN ALL TYPES OF CASES: “IF THE DEFENDANT FEELS SHE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY PART OF HER CASE BY REASON OF INADEQUATE PLEADINGS … SHE MAY NEED TO TAKE THAT UP WITH HER SOLICITORS…”
I appreciate that today has been a “pleadings heavy” day on this site. However the reason for this is that pleadings are important across the board. Earlier today we looked at pleadings in a multi-million pound dispute between two banks. Here…
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…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 62: REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL REPORT IN A DEFENCE MAY NOT BE HELPFUL: “A PLEADING NEEDS TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS AND COHERENT”
Today we are going to look in detail at attempts to amend a defence. There is much to learn about pleadings, pleading defences and applications to amend. We start off with an application made last year. However as we shall…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A MANDATORY OBLIGATION OFTEN IGNORED
It is surprisingly common to see witness statements that fail to comply with the basic – and mandatory – requirement that the maker of the statement gives the source of any matters of information or belief they are giving evidence…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS REFUSAL TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT OF COMMITTAL APPLICATION: THE COURT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT A PARTY COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION
In this case the Court of Appeal overturned a decision not to grant an adjournment of committal proceedings. The Court held that the judge below did not appear to be aware of the fact that a respondent to committal proceedings…
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…
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…
KEEPING TIME ESTIMATES UNDER REVIEW: JUDGE GIVES REASONS FOR ADJOURNING APPLICATION: AND (BY THE WAY) “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN”
It is rare that we see a detailed judgment on the reasons why an application has to be adjourned. Here the judge comments on the reasons for the adjournment but also observes that the initial time estimate for the application…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (3): TIME LIMITS FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROCUREMENT ACT MADE CLEAR…
Some of the changes being introduced on the 6th April 2026 are relatively niche. However given that they could impact CLB readers who deal with these issues on a regular or “one off” basis I do not like to miss…
THE COURT REFUSES AN APPLICATION THAT A TRANSCRIPT BE OBTAINED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE: IF YOU ARE BROKE THEN WHY HAVEN’T YOU ATTENDED COURT TO PROVE THIS?
Here is a judgment that contains a central irony. The applicant had failed to attend court to be examined about his means and as a result his passport was confiscated. His application to have the passport returned was refused. In…
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…
COURT ORDER PREVENTS CLAIMANTS FROM SENDING COURT DOCUMENTS TO CERTAIN PARTIES: THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT: THE DEROGATION FROM THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IS JUSTIFIED
Here we have an unusual order under CPR 31.22 (2) made in unusual circumstances. The claimant was precented from sending documents disclosed to in proceedings, and mentioned in open court, to various specified entities. It is a reminder of the…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.