PREPARING TRIAL AND APPLICATION BUNDLES: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 4th DECEMBER 2024
The previous post on Serra -v- Harvey [2024] EWHC 2250 (KB) has led to me finalising a (long-prepared) webinar on bundles. In Serra wasted costs were ordered on an indemnity basis against the claimant’s solicitors because the lateness and condition of the trial bundles. The bundles…
COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH
In Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB) Master Thornett revisited the principles considered in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) It was held that the claimant’s unrealistic figures in a costs budget should lead to the claimant paying…
A COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT TOTALLY TOTALLY FAILED TO DO ITS JOB: COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR DEFENDANT TO RELY ON COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT “SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER”
This blog has looked extensively at judicial criticism of schedules of damages over the years. It has to be remembered that counter-schedules also have to be properly drafted. This is emphasised. in the judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in…
VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT
In Sahota v Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch) HHJ Rawlings (sitting as a High Court Judge)was critical of an expert witness who, in essence, worked backwards in relation to a valuation. The judge found that having come to…
COST BITES 180: EXCESSIVE BUDGET LEADS TO PARTY BEING ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING
In Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) Master Thornett awarded costs against a party who, the Master felt, had over-inflated their costs budget. The case stands as a warning that a party putting forward a budget which is…
COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)
In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] EWHC 2025 (TCC) Mr Justice Constable found that a “successful” claimant who had recovered nearly £3.7 million in damages should only recover 20% of its costs. Both parties had…
COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: “HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS”
We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch). The judge rejected an argument that a different order for costs should be made because the respondent/clamant…
COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill rejected an argument that a claimant, whose case had been struck out due to non compliance with a peremptory order, should then not be liable to pay…
THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024
I was a more than a little shocked to read the judgment in Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 it is a case that shows that lawyers are still making…
COURT MADE PEREMPTORY ORDER THAT CLAIMANT PAY COSTS: ARTICLE 6 RIGHTS NOT INFRINGED
In Khokan v Nirjhor [2024] EWHC 1872 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill granted the defendant’s application for a peremptory order following the claimant’s failure to pay costs ordered against him at an interlocutory hearing. The judge refused the claimant’s application for…
“UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE” NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: “IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO”
The post earlier this morning on “intemperate” comments in court documents and correspondence reminded me that I meant to highlight a particular aspect of the judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). The judgment highlights that unnecessarily argumentative…
WRITING INFLAMMATORY THINGS IN COURT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: IT NEVER, EVER, HELPS
We are looking at the judgment of HHJ Edward Hess in TM v KM [2022] EWFC 155 for two reasons: firstly the costs involved; secondly the judge’s observations about the unattractiveness of putting personal pejorative remarks in court documents. There…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE AND DISCLOSURE: WHEN THE JUDGE FINDS THAT THE MEDICAL NOTES ARE NOT ACCURATE: “A CONTRIVED AND FALSE PIECE OF EVIDENCE”
In Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) HHJ Carmel Wall (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that annotations made to medical records were not, in fact, contemporaneous. She rejected the second defendant’s evidence based on…
COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT’S COSTS: A POINT OR TWO ABOUT “CLIENT’S” SUBMISSIONS
In McAteer v Hat & Mitre & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1746 (Ch) Sir Anthony Mann (sitting as a High Court Judge) dismissed the unsuccessful appellant’s application that the respondent’s costs be reduced. There were also some important…
WHEN SHOULD A PART 20 DEFENDANT BE LIABLE TO PAY THE PART 20 CLAIMANT’S COSTS OF DEFENDING THE MAIN ACTION? THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
In Alison Healey (Widow And Executrix of the Estate of Simon Andrew Healey, Deceased) v Mr Daniel McgRath [2024] EWHC 1360 (KB) Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the question of whether it was appropriate…
THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT
In Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC) Mr Simon Lofthouse K.C., sitting as a High Court Judge, considered the issues that arose when a party had tried to influence…
JOINING A SOLICITOR INTO AN APPLICATION, WITH A THREAT OF COSTS – LED TO THE APPLICANTS PAYING £45,000 IN COSTS
The case of Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakowski & Anor [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch) is a real world example of the dangers of joining a litigant’s firm of solicitors in an application, threatening to seek costs against them. …
MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
I am grateful to both Kevin Latham and Andrew Buchan for pointing out the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thakkar & Ors v Mican & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 552. The court held that a judge had acted…
REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024
A costs order against your client is always a painful event. This webinar looks at the best and safest means of litigating to avoid costs orders against a claimant. It covers areas relating to extensions of time, relief from sanctions…
PROCEDURE, DAMAGES, LIABILITY, COSTS AND LIMITATION: A SERIES OF WEBINARS THIS YEAR AIMING TO HELP AVOID OR DEAL WITH PROBLEMS IN LITIGATION
The issues arising from many of the cases looked at on this blog are being considered in a series of webinars starting later this month. The webinars cover many of the problem areas of litigation: what to do when things…
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…): A REPEAT
Recent social media interest in a post I first wrote in April 2017 has led me to repeat it. The post concerned an aspect the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that did not made the…
COST BITES 139: A CLAIMANT WAS NOT AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN SOLICITORS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND
The judgment of Deputy Master Grimshaw in Al Tarboush v Cassam [2024] EWHC 639 (KB) shows two things: (i) the limitations of the wasted costs procedure; (ii) the major procedural problems that can arise in the course of a case…
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. …
PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT
In Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some complex costs orders in relation to the litigation. However the fundamental point was that parties that the claimants that failed…
A DEFENDANT CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEBARRING ORDER: AN APPLICATION SOUNDLY REFUSED
In Al Saud v Gibbs [2024] EWHC 123 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver refused a defendant’s application to set aside a debarring order so that they could be involved in the trial of the action. The judgment contains important observations on…
MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 5: ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE COURT “IN TERROREM” WERE NOT WELCOME
In March 2019 I wrote about the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB), the post noted that “parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the…
MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 4: THE POST OFFICE’S ATTEMPT TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE AND ITS CLAIM TO HAVE “SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
On March 16 2019 this blog had three separate posts on the Post Office case. The post repeated here gives an example of the Post Office’s extremely “robust” strategy. It attempted to strike out a large part of the claimants’…
MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 3: THE POST OFFICE’S APPLICATION THAT THE JUDGE RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE HE WAS “BIASED” AGAINST THEM
The Post Office was so convinced of the righteousness of its case that it determined that any findings against it must be due to judicial bias. Having lost some applications before the trial judge it attempted to have the judge…
MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 2: THE JUDGE’S VIEW ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY
I am repeating a post first written in 2019. Matters that are in the public consciousness now were very much in the consciousness of the legal profession then. This post dealt with the trial judge’s view of the credibility of…
OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENTS 2023: DRAGONS, VENUS, BOMBS, WAR AND THE BEAUTY OF NIDDERDALE (TO NAME JUST A FEW)
It is now too close to Christmas to write the traditional material of this blog. However it is a good time to review some of the best opening lines of judgments for 2023. If you feel I have missed some…
A CLAIMANT, ALLEGING FRAUD, IS NOT ENTITLED TO DELIBERATELY BREACH A COURT ORDER AND THE RULES OF COURT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT GIVES LITIGATORS MUCH TO THINK ABOUT
Those who draft pleadings, particularly those alleging fraud and misconduct, have much to learn from the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Kryeziu & Ors [2023] EWHC 3233 (KB). The fact that a party is…
COST BITES 128: WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUDGE TO MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS
In Guy & Ors v Brake & Ors (Re Moratorium Cancellation Costs) [2023] EWHC 3179 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that it was appropriate to make no order for costs in relation to an…
COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS – BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S COSTS:
In Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 2923 (Ch) Mr Justice Mellor considered whether certain issues relating to the action meant that there should be a reduction of the…
COST BITES 123: COSTS OF BUDGETING REDUCED BY 25% TO REFLECT CLAIMANT’S UNREALISTIC BUDGET
In Reid v Wye Valley NHS Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 2843 (KB) Master Brown reduced the recoverable costs of budgeting by 25% to reflect the unrealistic nature of the claimant’s budget. There are important issues here for those who…
COSTS OF £50,000 ORDERED TO BE PAID BY LITIGATION FRIEND: “HE WILLINGLY TOOK ON THE ROLE OF LITIGATION FRIEND AND HIS PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN WHOLLY INADEQUATE”
In Y v Z [2023] EWFC 205 HHJ Edward Hess ordered that the litigation friend for the respondent pay, personally, the applicant’s costs caused by the need to adjourn a hearing. The respondent had not prepared at all for the…
DOES WHAT YOU WEAR MATTER? GUIDANCE FOR ADVOCATES AND LITIGANTS: ANOTHER ISSUE REVISITED
This is a part of the series revisiting previous posts. Here we go back to November 2018. The question was asked – does how you dress affect how you are perceived? This followed a tweet (from the USA) where a …
COST BITES 111: LOOKING AT DETAILED ASSESSMENTS (1): YOU SHOULDN’T BE CLAIMING 62.3 HOURS FOR DRAFTING A LETTER OF CLAIM
It is surprising how few legal practitioners have actually been to a detailed assessment hearing, my own enquiries suggest it is a tiny fraction of litigators. A much higher percentage, however, have had cause to comment, possibly complain, about the…
COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR
I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Freedman in The Scout Association -v- Bolt Burdon Kemp [2023] EWHC 2575 (KB). On appeal Freedman J upheld the…
COST BITES 104: “THE LATEST BATTLE IN A WIDER FORENSIC LEGAL WAR”: DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST A COMPANY IT ASSERTED WAS “THE REAL PARTY” IN THE DISPUTE
In the judgment given today in Soares v Wilson [2023] EW Misc 11 (CC) HHJ Luba KC rejected an application that costs be paid by a non-party. The defendant’s application that a PLC pay the costs of the action because…
FIXED COSTS: ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR “UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR”
We are continuing with our bite sized examination of the fixed costs regime by looking at CPR 45.13. This allows the court to reduce, or increase, the fixed costs for “unreasonable behaviour”. The rule appears only to allow this variation…
DELAYS, ADJOURNMENTS AND THE SIZE OF THE TRIAL BUNDLE: NOT JUST AN ACADEMIC PROBLEM: ELECTRONIC BUNDLES DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN JUST THROW EVERYTHING IN
The judgment of Mr Justice Constable in Innovate Pharmaceuticals Ltd v University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation [2023] EWHC 2394 (TCC) contains another interesting insight into the preparation of trial bundles and how that, in itself, can become highly contentious. …
PART 36 APPLIES TO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY: SILENCE DID NOT INDICATE A REFUSAL TO ENTER ADR: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLIED
In Jones v Tracey & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2256 (Ch) Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) found that Part 36 applied to cases that were not about money. It was held that the fact that the action would be…
THE COVER UP IS INVARIABLY WORSE THAN THE ERROR: WHAT TO DO WHEN MISTAKES ARE MADE
The post earlier this week based on the article by the Honourable Joseph Quinn led to to look in detail at one point made – that of avoiding a “cover up” and acting immediately to deal with mistakes. This led…
RUDE OR “ROBUST” CORRESPONDENCE? GUIDANCE ON AVOIDING INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE OR BEING GRATUIOUSLY OFFENSIVE
This is a repeat of a post first written in August 2017. At that time the Solicitors Regulatory Authority had just issued on “Offensive communications” (the link is to an updated version from 2019). It gave me a chance to…
SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: “PART OF THE POINT OF THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 IS TO PREVENT THE SORT OF COSTS ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE MADE”
In Green v White Lantern Film (Britannica) Ltd [2023] EWHC 1391 (Ch) Mr Justice Michael Green considered arguments as to conducts and costs in a case where the claimant had beaten her own Part 36 offer. The normal Part 36…
COST BITES 90: CLAIMANTS LIABLE TO PAY 5% OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS: HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL INJURIES AND “MIXED CLAIMS”
In ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Ors, Re Costs [2023] EWHC 1337 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill considered the liability of the claimants to pay costs in a “mixed claim” which was, primarily, a personal injury claim. She…
WHEN AN EXPERT DECLAIMS A POINT “WITH A LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY”: BUT THE HANDWRITING SAMPLE WAS NOT FROM THE CLAIMANT
There are plenty of examples of difficulties with expert’s giving evidence on this blog. Another example of problematic expert report can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Saini in Packham v Wightman & Ors [2023] EWHC 1256 (KB)….
WITNESS CREDIBILITY:”BLAMING LEGAL ADVISERS FOR LEGAL DOCUMENTATION”: A CASE IN POINT
The judgment of HHJ Richard Williams (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Rancom Security Ltd v Girling & Ors [2023] EWHC 1115 (Ch) provides an interesting example of the assessment of witness credibility. It also highlights the point that…
THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
A new edition of the King’s Bench Division Guide was published last week (although it is dated March 2023). I will take a short look at the major changes. Firstly looking at a new passage in relation to the instruction…
COST BITES 82: WHEN THE SIZE OF THE COSTS STARTS TO SWAMP THE SIZE OF THE ESTATE: AN EXHORTATION TO PARTIES INVOLVED IN INHERITANCE CLAIMS
The judgment of Master Brightwell in Amnir & Ors v Bala & Ors [2023] EWHC 1054 (Ch) contains a warning to many, if not all, litigants, particularly those involved in Inheritance Act claims. The size of the costs in the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.