CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES
This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those…
THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH
In Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) Mr Justice Henry Carr refused an appeal against the making of a “Bullock” order in relation to the costs of a fourth defendant. The claimant, however, was not successful…
PART 36 OFFER WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ONE AND DEFENDANT HAD TO PAY COSTS
In Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1669 (QB) Mr Justice Knowles rejected the defendant’s argument that a Part 36 offer meant that she did not have to pay costs. THE CASE The claimant succeeded in an action for misuse of…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
WITHOUT NOTICE INJUNCTIONS 1: CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION GOES DOWN THE PAN
The judgment in Brothers Enterprises Ltd v New World Hospitality UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2455 (Ch) has only recently arrived on BAILLI. However it is a case that shows the importance of disclosure in relation to without notice injunctions. What…
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)
In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…
ATTEMPTS TO HARASS THE TRIAL JUDGE IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION
In Hilson v McCarthy [2019] EWHC 1110 (Admin) the Divisional Court confirmed that the appellants had harassed a judge unlawfully and amounted to harassment. It is an important case for anyone involved in the legal system. “in examining the nature…
WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES
In Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 allowed an appeal by an insurer so that an application for committal for contempt of court can proceed. No substantive findings of fact have been made. The judgment shows that…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON’T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS “FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER”
Don’t write rude things. Not even in internal emails or texts. One day it may (and probably will) come back to haunt you. Read the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor…
COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN “INTERIM” APPLICATION
I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Carr in Parsa -v- D.S. Smith PLC (25th March 2019) Parsa v D.S. Smith PLC – Approved Judgment –…
A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE
Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously acting for…
NOT COMPLYING WITH DIRECTIONS OR REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE – AND THEN BLAMING THE OTHER SIDE: IT DOES YOU NO CREDIT
There are several matters of general interest in the judgment of Mrs Justice Pepperall in Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd [2019] EWHC 819 (TCC) (02 April 2019). Here we look at the dangers of simply failing to…
LAWYERS: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THINGS HAVE GONE WRONG? MEANINGFUL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO KNOW (AND CARE): WHEN YOU THINK SOMETHING IS HITTING THE FAN
Last night I did a post on using social media to help young lawyers (and some not so young lawyers). Specifically on how it is possible to gather information and advice from around the professions (and indeed around the world)….
ADVICE FOR THE ASPIRANT OR TYRO LAWYER: WHEN TWITTER CAN BE YOUR FRIEND (IN FACT YOU CAN HAVE DOZENS OF FRIENDS GIVING YOU ADVICE)
This is a post started almost by accident. It started with a tweet when a barrister was happy to be sitting on her sofa, for a change and said this is the reality of legal life. It led to dozens…
“CAN SOLICITORS BE RUDE IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OPPOSING CLIENT”? A RECAP OF ADVICE ON CONDUCT AND COURTESY
“Can solicitors be rude in their correspondence to the opposing client.” This was a search term that led someone to this blog earlier today. We don’t know whether this search was from a solicitor proposing to be rude, or the…
WHO HAS WON AND WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHEN “WHO PAYS THE CHEQUE” IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER
In Hamad M Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 526 (TCC) Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart considered a case where it was far from clear that the “winning” party should recover its costs, The case is useful in that it…
CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)
I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual. This part…
EXPERTS WHO CAN’T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN’T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL…
In X and Y (Delay : Professional Conduct of Expert) [2019] EWFC B9 HH Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) made some observations in relation to the role of the expert, particularly when that expert cannot report timeously. The…
ALLEGED “MISCONDUCT” DURING ASSESSMENT PROCESS DID NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED OR REDUCED: ATE PREMIUM WAS REASONABLE
In Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 539 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart rejected an argument that mistakes made by a claimant during the assessment of costs process should have led to costs being disallowed or reduced. The…