THE BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER IS A SERIOUS MATTER: IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE DEALT WITH UNDER CPR 3.10
Here we look at an interesting, but eventually futile, about the approach the court should take when a party was in breach of a peremptory order. The claimant in breach argued that the court should consider the matter under CPR…
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…
WHEN A SOLICITOR FORGETS TO SIGN AN IMPORTANT PART OF AN APPEAL DOCUMENT: CAN CPR 3.10 SAVE THE DAY? A TRICKY POINT TO WATCH IN FORM N161
CPR 3.10 is a rule often asked to so some “heavy lifting” by applicants who have not complied with the rules or court orders. Sometimes it is not capable of handling the load, particularly in relation to issues surrounding service…
FAILURE TO PAY CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN LODGING PROCEEDINGS AT COURT MEANS ACTION BITES THE DUST: CPR 3.9 AND 3.10 CANNOT HELP
In Peterson & Anor v Howard De Walden Estates Ltd [2023] EWHC 929 (KB) the unfortunate claimant failed to fail the correct fee. The court declined to issue proceedings. Consequently the claim was out of time Mr Justice Eyre held…
FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: SERVICE WITHOUT A SEAL IS NOT GOOD SERVICE BUT CPR 3.10 SAVED THE CLAIMANT
NB THE USE OF CPR 3.10 IS MOST PROBABLY NOT AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOLLOWING THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT IN Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 14. It took until the 31st January…
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS AND CPR 3.10: CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
The judgment in Baxendale-Walker v APL Management Ltd [2018] EWHC 543 (Ch) covers several issues relating to procedure. Here I want to look at the assertions made in relation to procedural defects. The judge held that some procedural errors by the…
WITHDRAWAL OF PART 36 OFFER BY EMAIL: CPR 3.10 SAVES THE CLAIMANT
The change in the discount rate meant that many claimants withdraw Part 36 offers they had made. This has led to the question – is an email withdrawing an offer sufficient. I am grateful to Dominic Graham from Holmes &…
CPR 3.10 STOPS A CLAIM FROM SINKING: USING THE WRONG FORM NOT FATAL TO AN ACTION
In LD Commodities Rice Merchandising LLC -v- The Owners and/or Charterers of the Vessel Styliani Z [2015 ] EWHC 3060 (Admlty) Mr Justice Teare considered a case where the claimant used the wrong form to issue an action, this could…
COULD CPR 3.10 BE THE LITIGATORS NEW BEST FRIEND? THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL PETROLEUM CONSIDERED (AND THEY ARE ENORMOUS)
In Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) Popplewell held that the provisions of CPR 3.10 meant that service of the particulars of claim by e-mail could be good service and the default judgment entered thereafter…
You must be logged in to post a comment.