MAZUR MATTERS 20: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION? PLUS A SNIPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE
I am continuing with the Mazur series by looking at two more useful links from reputable sources. One, from the Bar Standards Board, on what is not the conduct of litigation the other the Law Society Practice Note on these…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 32: CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ARE NO PLACE TO TAKE A POINT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PLEADED AT ALL
Here we are looking at a case where there were manifold issues (“100s of allegations) and where evidence was given over several weeks. However the claimant attempted to raise a new, unpleaded, issue during closing submissions. As we shall see…
MAZUR MATTERS 19: TWO USEFUL LINKS: THIS HAS CHANGED THE PROFESSION’S UNDERSTANDING NOT THE LAW: STEPS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
I am attempting to avoid the blog being solely about Mazur. However the fact is that the Mazur issues are the most widely read posts, many of the more mainstream issues having taken a backseat. Whilst there is some commentary…
PART 36 CASE OF DAY (4): THE AMOUNT OF INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE?
It is now normal for a successful party to be awarded interim costs at the conclusion of a trial. Here there is consideration of some of the issues in relation to the making of such orders. In particular the court…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?
We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order. Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (2): SHOULD THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER APPLY? INTERESTING ISSUES OR ISSUES ON INTEREST?
We continue looking at a High Court decision with some interesting issues in relation to the making of Part 36 offers and the consequences for a party if the offer is not beaten. Here we look at the court’s considerations…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (1): WAS THE OFFER A VALID OFFER? TWO FIELDS, THREE TRACTORS AND £20,000 CAUSED A FURROW IN THE DEFENDANT’S BROWS
Here we are looking at an argument as to whether a Part 36 offer, slightly unusual in form, was a valid Part 36 offer. Later posts will examine many of the other issues relating to costs that were considered in…
SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY THE CLAIMANT’S COSTS WHEN IT RAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT AS TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY? A HIGH COURT DECISION
There has been much debate recently about whether assertions of fundamental dishonesty have been made too readily. This case makes it clear that there may be costs consequences for those who run such arguments but who do not succeed. This…
MAZUR MATTERS 15: COULD BREACHES OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT? WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
I have gently, perhaps too gently, suggested that a great deal of what is being written and said about the impact of Mazur is “unhelpful”. Put more bluntly some of it is inaccurate and misleading. There is much “wishful thinking”…
MAZUR MATTERS 14: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”: A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR ON 31st OCTOBER 2025
As all readers of this blog will now by now The decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) means that solicitors must ensure that an “authorised person” has conduct of litigation. A failure to…
EXPERT WATCH 18: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S DRAFT REPORT – REFERRED TO IN DEFENCE AND THE REPORT OF ANOTHER EXPERT
Here we look at a claimant’s applications under CPR 31.14(1) and 35.10 to have sight of a draft expert report that the defendant had referred to in a defence and in the report of another expert. The judgment contains a…
MAZUR MATTERS 13: WHAT IS MEAN BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 4: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN “IN THE ROUND”
The decision Mazur continues to attract considerable comment, for good reason. Here we consider the question of how the courts approach the issue. (13 may be lucky for some. Just remember the court considers the position “in the round”). …
SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE UNDER SCRUTINY, ADMISSIBILITY AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED: “THE PROVIDING OF PATENTLY UNTRUE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE COURT, ENDORSED WITH STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, IS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO THE COURT”
This is the most serious criticism of surveillance operatives as I have seen. The judge found that the operatives, filming on behalf of a defendant for the purpose of litigation, had been “fundamental and repeated” errors. The operatives then put…
MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
We are continuing with the detailed look at the consequences of the Mazur case. Here we look at that part of a judgment where the court made clear findings as to what did not constitute the conduct of litigation. (Staying outside…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
On a regular basis on this blog we see cases where judges have been highly critical of the witness statements used at trials or hearings. This criticism is not a rare event and is usually justified. Many witness statements are…
SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
Over the years many claimants have been “rescued” by a defendant’s failure to make a timely, or correct, application to dispute the jurisdiction when the claim form has been improperly served. The limits of the defendant’s obligations were considered by…
SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
Here we look at another case where a claimant has come to grief because of a failure to serve the claim form. The ingenious arguments that he should have relief from sanctions were successful at first instance, but were rejected…
MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2 (A) : WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Comment on the implications of the Mazur decision goes on unabated. Some of this is informed commentary, some it is definitely not. On this site we are going to continue the examination of the primary sources of assistance to litigators…
EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
It is rare for there to be a detailed consideration of the principles relating to whether expert evidence is necessary, admissible or desirable. There is a detailed consideration of the principles here, combined with some clear observations on the necessity…
MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
The webinar on Mazur I did last Friday is now available from Steve Cornforth who kindly arranged it. Details are below. (You can watch the recording on any screen you like – well nearly…) HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH…
MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
A person unlawfully “conducting” litigation can be imprisoned for up to two years, be fined and is also in contempt of court. This makes uncomfortable reading for many. However there is a statutory defence. There is useful case law…
MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
We are continuing with a detailed examination of the cases and principles relating to what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. Here (with some major caveats in mind) we look at the Court of Appeal decision that has been…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE
Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid. The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…
MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
This is the start of a new sub-series concentrating on one issue. We will be looking at what has become one of the key matters of concern for many litigators – what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. There…
MAZUR MATTERS 7: LINKS TO SOME USEFUL RESOURCES: SOME INTERESTING READING FOR THE WEEKEND…
I have just finished presenting a webinar on the Mazur decision. I have a distinct feeling that this will not be the last. It was the first time I can remember where the time spent on questions afterwards exceeded the…
“A KEY TASK OF LITIGATION ADVOCACY IS TO HELP THE COURT TO SEE THE WOOD SAID TO BE CONSTITUTED BY THE TREES”: OVERLENGTHY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: PERHAPS ADVOCATES SHOULD TURN OVER A NEW LEAF…
Here we look at judicial comments on the written submissions given after a lengthy trial. The judge’s concern was that their length hampered rather than helped their task. (One suspects it sapped a lot of enjoyment out of their task)…
PART 36: WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED AS TO INCREASED INTEREST WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN OFFER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
When a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer they are entitled to additional interest on damages from the “relevant period” (the date of expiry of the offer. Here we have a case where the factors that effect the rate…
MAZUR MATTERS 6: FURTHER GUIDANCE FROM CILEX: “FIRMS WILL NEED TO SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW”
CILEX have provided further guidance in a document produced yesterday “CILEx Regulation – Interim Guidance The conduct of litigation and supervision”. (It may not be too late to register for the webinar on this topic today at 12.00 – details…
MAZUR MATTERS 5: THE SRA STATEMENT: “WE KNEW THE LAW ALL ALONG” (WITH NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THEY GOT IT WRONG)
Along with the reminder that the webinar on Mazur is on Friday 3rd October (details available here) it is notable that SRA issued a statement on Mazur yesterday. The full text of which is below. There is no hint of…
MAZUR MATTERS 4: DOES MAZUR COVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS? THREE CASES THAT CONSIDER THE ISSUE
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Here we consider the issue relating to…
MAZUR MATTERS 3: CILEX MEMBERS – THE REAL VICTIMS OF ALL THIS: WHAT CILEX MEMBERS CAN DO ABOUT THIS
If any members of the profession are entitled to be disgruntled (to put it mildly) about the decision in Mazur it is CILEX members who conduct litigation. They have hard earned qualifications and extensive experience. However, unless they come within…
WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN “ISSUED” ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT’S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)
I have written before about the “heavy lifting” that sometimes takes place when practitioners attempt to invoke CPR 3.10. Here we look at a case where CPR 3.10 was used to condemn a claimant who had used the wrong procedure…
SERVICE POINTS 11: A PARTY CANNOT SIMPLY MAKE UNILATERAL DECISIONS AS TO SERVICE WHICH OVERRIDE SPECIFIC COURT ORDERS
When a court makes an order as to the means of alternative service it expects the party in question to comply with that order. Here we have a case where the claimant decided on a different means of “serving” the…
A REMINDER: WEBINAR ON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR (AND HOW TO AVOID SOLICITORS BREAKING THE CRIMINAL LAW WHEN USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF): 3rd OCTOBER 2025
The fallout, concern and – dare I say it – recriminations in relation to the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys continues. There has been a lot of commentary already. This webinar aims to look through the “chatter” by concentrating…
AI USED IN THE WRITING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION: READ ALL ABOUT IT…
There has been much discussion of the advantages, and disadvantages, in lawyers using AI. This is clearly going to be a major issue for the legal profession going forwarded. Last week I reviewed Andrew Hogan’s book on this topic. There…
UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK
The Chancery Guide was updated earlier this month. Here we look at the Practice Note and have a link to the updated Guide itself. FINDING THE LINK The Practice Note that accompanies it gives a link to the Guide itself…
EXPERT WATCH 13: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE A NEW CASE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT (HOW DO WE THINK THIS WENT?)
We are looking at a case where the claimant’s expert, belatedly, accepted that the reports he was relying on were unreliable. The claimant then attempted to introduce new matters and evidence to bolster an alternative case. The judge rejected that…
THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF TOOLBOX SERIES 3: WHERE DO YOU LOOK IF YOU WANT (OR WANT TO OPPOSE) AN APPLICATION THAT A TRIAL BE ADJOURNED BECAUSE A PARTY OR WITNESS IS ILL?
The motivation for this series arises from a personal experience earlier this year. I had travelled to a hotel in readiness for a trial the following day. At midnight I found out that the other side were asking for an…
COST BITES 291: WHEN BUDGETING THE HOURLY RATES SOUGHT CAN BE TOO HIGH, BUT THE PHASE TOTAL REASONABLE
At the budgeting phase of a case there are often disputes as to the appropriate hourly rates. The response is, usually, that it is not the court’s task on budgeting to set the hourly rates but to consider the reasonableness…
A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
We are looking at a High Court decision that could have major ramifications for the way in which firms of solicitors organise their practices. In particular in relation to the qualifications of staff who conduct litigation, what is meant by…
ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
It is not unknown for debtors to seek to transfer property to another person in an attempt to avoid a charging order being made against it. We see see such a case here. A house, initially in the sole name…
THREE WEBINARS ON EXPERTS: THE JOINT EXPERT AND MEETING OF EXPERTS; PART 35 QUESTIONS AND EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025
The way in which the “Expert Watch” series has quickly developed shows that issues relating to expert evidence continue to give rise to problems. These three webinars explore many of the major issues in relation to experts. Dealing with the…
IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS “FINAL” JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
We are looking at a number of cases that, on the face of it, are highly unusual. One judge has already indicated that there is a strong prima facie cases that some related cases “are all fraudulent”. There are…
WITNESSES WHO GIVE THE COURT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR “OPINION”: I’M NOT SAYING IT LED DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT LOSING THIS CASE – BUT IT DID NOT HELP…
There appears to be no end to the practice of witnesses giving the court the benefit of their opinion in witness statements. There have been numerous cases where the judiciary have warned against this. The white book has a specific…
SERVICE POINTS 9: SERVICE AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IS NOT GOOD SERVICE BUT ON THIS OCCASION – IT FITTED THE BILL…
Here we are looking at an unusual case in relation to service. It is a case where the claimant served at the wrong address but (unusually) the court exercised its discretion to retrospectively validate service. There is more to this,…
COST (MEGA) BITES 286: AND YOU SAID THAT WITH AN “ADMIRABLY STRAIGHT FACE”: “OVERLAWYERING” CONSIDERED IN AN EXHAUSTING CASE
We are looking at a case that has already been subject to several posts on this site. In the previous decision about budgeting the claimants’ budgets were described as “absurdly high” and the arguments “strains all credulity”. The court is…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANT OF PLEADINGS 32: “BOTH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND DEFENCE ARE LENGTHY DOCUMENTS, UNJUSTIFIABLY SO”
We are here honing on in one aspect of a decision that was about allocation. The judge commented on how poor the pleadings of both side were. The Particulars of Claim and Defence were too long, a Reply was unnecessary. …
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2025 AND THE 1ST OCTOBER 2025 (2): DISPUTING EVIDENCE AND FILING EVIDENCE IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS
Here we look at the latest statutory instrument which makes changes to the rules. This time a highly specific rule making amendments to Part 8 to deal with the filing of evidence where the defendant states it intends to dispute…
THE PERIODICAL REMINDER OF THE DANGERS OF A SOLICITOR SIGNING A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: IN THIS CASE THE CLIENT WAS FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST
Here we are considering once again the question of whether it is wise for a solicitor to sign a statement of truth on behalf of a client. It arises from the case we have already looked at this morning. However…
You must be logged in to post a comment.