PARTIES SHOULD BE AWARE OF CONGESTION FACING LITIGANTS IN THE COURTS
The judgment of HHJ Pelling KC in ABT Auto Investments Ltd v Aapico Investment Pte Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1791 (Comm) has recently become available on BAILII. The judge refused an application to amend that was heard one month…
A SERIES OF FOUR WEBINARS TO TAKE YOU THROUGH LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO FATAL ACCIDENTS
In March and April 2024 I am presenting four webinars which take practitioners through the major issues relating to law and procedure in Fatal Accident Act claims. All of those who subscribe to the webinars will receive comprehensive questionnaires for…
“EYE ROLLING, HEAD SHAKING, GRUNTING, SNICKERING, GUFFAWING AND LOUD MUTTERING”: HARDLY THE STUFF OF GOOD ADVOCACY
In China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v Novalex Inc., 2024 ONSC 608 (CanLII), C. Chang.J, made some trenchant observations about the conduct of one of the advocates in the case. “It has long been a tradition and requirement of etiquette…
THE OFFERS WERE NOT PART 36 OFFERS: COURT COULD DETERMINE COSTS OF A PRELIMINARY TRIAL
In Holden v Holden & Anor [2024] EWHC 453 (Ch) Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered offers made by the defendant to see whether they were in fact Part 36 offers. He held that they…
DISPUTING SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT FAILED TO USE CORRECT RULE, BUT CPR 3.10 APPLIED
A defendant that wants to dispute jurisdiction should normally apply under CPR Part 11. In The Tintometer Ltd & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor [2024] EWHC 370 (Ch) Mrs Justice Bacon considered the situation where a defendant had…
THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE: WEBINAR 18th MARCH 2024
We have seen several examples on this blog recently relating to the summary assessment of costs, in some cases the sums assessed have been substantial. This webinar on the 18th March 2024 looks at recent cases and then considers the…
AN APPELLANT CANNOT RE-OPEN THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH IT HAS BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Williams v Williams & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 1465 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether an appellant could seek to re-open grounds of appeal. The criteria was held to be very restricted and the appellant not…
NEW FORMS FOR ANONYMITY ORDERS: GET THE LINK – SEE THE ORDER
Form PF 10 for anonymity orders has been amended. The latest form can be found here. PF10 Anonymity for children and protected parties – prohibition of publication order [HEADING] [TBC] (a child / protected party…
COURT OF APPEAL – NOT THE CORRECT DESTINATION FOR AN APPEAL RELATING TO THE SENTENCE PASSED ON A JUDGMENT DEBTOR
In Roberts v Jones [2024] EWCA Civ 118 the Court of Appeal held that it was not the correct court to hear an appeal relating to an appeal by a judgment creditor in relation to a sentence passed on a…
COST BITES 134: THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A COSTS ORDER IN ANOTHER ACTION WAS NOT GROUNDS FOR REFUSING AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS
In Baldudak v Matteo (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 301 (Ch) Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, made an order for a substantial interim payment of the claimant’s costs. He did not accept the defendant’s argument that…
THE DANGERS OF SERVING A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION: LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED
Another aspect of the judgment in Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) was the defendant’s conduct in serving a notice of non-admission. Service of the notice led to considerable extra costs being incurred. …
CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE THE JUDGE FOUND FOR THE DEFENDANT ON A BASIS THAT WAS NOT PLEADED
I am grateful to barrister Tom Morris for giving me details of the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Jacobs v Chalcot Crescent (Management) Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 259 (Ch). It is an important case about statements of case. The…
“TELL ME MORE, TELL ME MORE”: COURT OF APPEAL SENDS OUT CLEAR MESSAGE OF THE DANGERS OF SEEKING “CLARIFICATION” OF A JUDGMENT: IT MIGHT NOT GET YOU VERY FAR…
In YM (Care Proceedings) (Clarification of Reasons) [2024] EWCA Civ 71 the Court of Appeal issued a clear warning about the misuse of the practice of “seeking clarification” from the judge following a judgment. The decision is aimed specifically at…
PENAL NOTICES ON ORDERS – CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 6th APRIL 2024: A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BY THE USE OF THE WORD “BY”
Yesterday we looked at a case where the judge held it was inappropriate for the court to add a penal notice to an existing order. The rules relating to penal notices are changing on the 6th April as a result…
THIS WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CASE TO ADD A PENAL NOTICE TO AN ORDER: COURT WILL DETERMINE THE SUBSTANTIVE DISPUTE INSTEAD
In Wintermute Trading Ltd v Terraform Labs Pte Ltd [2024] EWHC 141 (KB) Mr Justice Lavender considered whether it was appropriate, on the facts of this case, to add a penal notice to an order for disclosure. He held that…
CHANGES TO THE FIXED COSTS RULE 1: WHEN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS MUST BE ALLOCATED TO THE MULTI TRACK
There are a number of significant changes taking place to the fixed costs rules, coming into force on the 6th April 2024. These are introduced by The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2024. Here we look at the change to the…
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT RECORDED? APPEAL PROCEEDS BY WAY OF A REHEARING
There are interesting issues considered in the judgment of Mr Recorder Adrian Jack in AS v AB [2024] EWFC 24. A party was appealing. The recording (and backup recording) failed to record the judge’s judgment and there was no agreed…
“RULE 1 FOR ANY JUDGE DEALING WITH A CASE” :SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER AFTER ONLY ONE PARTY HAS BEEN HEARD: SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS AND CASES IN THE CIVIL COURTS
There are some interesting issues raised in the Supreme Court judgment in Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3. The opening lines of the judgment, however, reiterate an important principle in relation to the need for a rehearing after a party…
DENTON WATCH 2: COURT REFUSES LATE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
In Tameside Caravans and Storage Ltd v Viavecto Ltd [2024] EWHC 95 (KB) Mr Justice Constable refused the defendant’s request for permission to appeal out of time. The fact that the defendant was a litigant in person at the time…
DENTON WATCH: CLAIMANT REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN THE CLAIM FORM WAS NOT SERVED DUE TO SOLICITOR’S MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT IT WOULD BE SERVED BY THE COURT
In Phipps v Goulbourne (Re the Estate of Tetla Yvonne Goulboure otherwise Tetla Yvonne Butler) [2024] EWHC 130 (Ch) Master Teverson refused the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. The claimant failed to serve a claim form, in accordance with…