APPLYING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A “CUT OUT AND KEEP” GUIDE TO THE AUTHORITIES
It is surprising how often searches that lead to this blog are questions about seeking adjournments on the grounds of ill health. This appears to be common issue. A useful “cut out and keep” summary of the relevant authorities can…
PLEADINGS: CLAIMANTS – TELL THE DEFENDANT THE CASE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE PUT AGAINST THEM
There are some interesting observations as to how a claimant should plead their case in the judgment in Walsh v CP Hart & Sons Ltd [2020] EWHC 37 (QB). “If, as in this case, the Claimant produces only at trial…
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…
11th HOUR APPLICATION TO INTRODUCE NEW WITNESS EVIDENCE (AND A NEW CASE) REFUSED
In Crumpler & Anor (Liquidators Of Peak Hotels And Resorts Ltd v Candey Limited [2019] EWHC 3558 (Ch) HHJ Davis-White QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused a party relief from sanctions where witness statements were served late. The…
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…
PROVING THINGS 170: YOU CAN’T GIVE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF SUBMISSIONS (HONESTLY, YOU CAN’T)
One important aspect of the judgment in Bates & Ors v the Post Office Ltd (No 6: Horizon Issues) [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB) is the judge’s criticism of the defendant’s attempt to give “evidence” at the stage of closing submissions….
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – A ROUND UP OF THE ROUND UPS: WHAT TO FRET ABOUT AND WHAT NOT TO FRET ABOUT…
There have been a series of annual reviews on key topics throughout December. To round off the year it seemed a good idea to provide a reminder of them all and put the links in one place 2019 AND CIVIL…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE THE YEAR IN REVIEW: FACTS, FIGURES AND SEARCH TERMS: “CAN A DEAD PERSON BE TAKEN TO COURT?”
The statistics at the end of the year are always interesting (to me at least). The search terms that lead to this blog can be quite illuminating (and sometimes quite alarming…). MOST READ POSTS OF 2019 After seven years…
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…
MAKING FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONE: THE MACKENZIE PERPLEX
There is one aspect of the judgement in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 that requires a little more attention. That is is the question of how parties, faced with the absence of documents and 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…
THE SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS OF A “TRUSTED BRAND”/”CAPRICIOUS MID-VICTORIAN FACTORY-OWNER”: THE DANGERS OF PUTTING YOUR CASE TOO HIGH
The judgment of Lord Justice Coulson rejecting the Post Office’s application for permission to appeal is available on “Post Office Trial“, a case that has already been looked at several times on this blog. Here we have a critical appraisal…
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL REFUSED: A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING: THE TRIAL WILL GO AHEAD
There is an interesting summary of the decision in Mitchell -v- Precis 545 Ltd (15/11/2019) on Kings Chambers website. A report by my colleague Jeremy Roussak of a case where he represented the claimant and where HHJ Freedman refused a…
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…
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…
PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN PERMISSION OF THE COURT, AND DIRECTIONS, BEFORE INSTRUCTING EXPERTS
In Gulf International Bank BSC v Aldwood [2019] EWHC 1666 (QB) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) made some observations about using expert evidence on foreign law without the court’s permission. THE CASE The judge was…
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME (CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS DO NOT GET EXCITED)
Today seems a good day to consider prospective applications for extensions of time. These are going to figure in every litigators career at some point. A knowledge of the relevant law is essential. A prospective application of time is dealt…
COUNTER-SCHEDULES: WORDS OF WISDOM FROM TWITTER
Twitter this afternoon gave rise to a number of interesting discussions about the role of the counter-schedule. I got permission to share some of the contributions. THE START It started with Sarah Pritchard QC looking for ideas for a talk…
WHY PROCEDURAL RULES ARE IMPORTANT (AND LEAD TO SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE): “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN, AND DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
In Paralel Routs Ltd v Fedotov [2019] EWHC 2656 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) emphasised the importance of procedural rules. There are quite a few interesting observations in relation to disclosure, redaction, civil…
