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…
THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE
The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements. The titles are often prompted by elements…
GILHAM -v- MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: A REMINDER OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS: “MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE WERE LIKELY”
The Supreme Court judgment yesterday in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 provides a landmark ruling on the issue that judges are “workers” and entitled to the protection of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There will be many…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…
One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14. Experts have the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 66: THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4
A party seeking to rely on expert evidence requires permission from the court. It is surprising how often the rule requiring the court to be provided with details of the cost of that expert is overlooked. “When parties apply for…
REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATES: THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS RIGHT
There is a short passage in Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Hambros Investments Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 2548 (Ch) where Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs makes it clear that an application had been given an inadequate time estimate….
QUICK REMINDER OF NEW COSTS BUDGETING RULES COMING INTO FORCE TODAY: INCURRED COSTS INCLUDE THE COSTS OF THE CCMC
Part of the 109th update to the Civil Procedure Rules came into force today. A quick reminder that, from today, there is a change in the way that the courts approach the costs of the CCMC itself. INCURRED COSTS…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ISSUES, ANONYMITY, EXPEDITED TRIALS AND … SPEARMINT RHINO
I have been meaning to write more about anonymity and civil litigation, in particular orders made under CPR 16. This issue arose today in a surprising context in AAA -v- Rakoff [2019] EWHC 2525 (QB). The case raises issues in…
CPR 3.1 USED, PROPERLY AND EFFICIENTLY, TO KEEP DOWN THE WAITING (AND ANGUISH)
In Irish & Anor, Re [2019] EWHC 2508 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) used CPR 3.1 to cut down greatly the time (expense and anguish) in relation to a difficult and sensitive application. “it seemed to…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE FORENSIC AND PROFESSIONAL DANGERS OF FAILING TO CONSIDER, AND GIVE EVIDENCE OF, THE SOURCE AND INFORMATION AND BELIEF
The previous post on the judgment in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) gives me a chance to return to a hobby horse – the need to give the source of information and belief when signing a witness statement. Here…
