2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT…)
Another certainty about writing about civil procedure is that every year will bring a batch of applications relating to sanctions and relief from sanctions. This year has been no different. We start off (from the end of last year) with…
ARGUE A WEAK CASE ON EACH AND EVERY POINT, GET INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST YOU
In Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3300 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare held that a claimant, who had pursued a weak case in a robust manner, should pay indemnity costs. There is…
REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: “THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF”
In Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn overturned a decision refusing relief from sanctions. The Appellant had made payments by cheque rather than by bank transfer. It is also an important example of the pitfalls caused…
STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 1: “OWN YOUR MISTAKES”
Today I am speaking at the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society annual conference on the topic of “Avoiding a Breakdown – Helping Your Clients by Helping Yourself”. I thought this would be a good day to start a new series on…
WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE
An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts. The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…
COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE
In Ford & Anor v Bennett & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1604 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs. The judgment contains a lesson to “additional parties” to litigation. “Parties who…
LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 3: THE SOLICITOR (GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS) HAD BECOME FAR TOO CLOSE TO THE CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE
In the third post on the dangers of lawyers giving evidence we are looking at the judgment of Recorder Monty QC in Afia v Mellor & Anor [2013] EW Misc 23 (CC). The only witness called for the defendants was…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)
The judgment of Master Clark in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) contains a number of important lessons : (i) for anyone preparing a witness statement to be careful not to inadvertently mislead the court; (ii) for experts – on…
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…
