PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS
The judgment of HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch) is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….
PROVING THINGS 51: NO EVIDENCE OF LOSS – NO DAMAGES: A LESSON TO SHARE
For the second time today we are looking at the judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Abbott -v- RCI Europe [2016] EWHC 2602 (Ch). This time in relation to the failure of the claimants to quantify or prove they had…
SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”: WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT’S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
There was recently some comment, and quite a few readers, of a post on “suing the man of straw”. This was the second post ever on this site. There were comments on Twitter that people were surprised by the post…
PROVING THINGS 49: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE DAMAGES WHEN THE OPINION EVIDENCE IN YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT
The dangers of giving opinion evidence in witness statements are highlighted in the judgment today of Mr Justice Coulson in MacInnes -v- Gross [2017] EWHC 46 (QB). The opinion parts of the claimant’s witness statements were struck out. There was…
TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT: SCHEDULES and COUNTER-SCHEDULES: THE "CINDERELLAS" OF THE LITIGATION PROCESS
One important, but often overlooked, element of procedure and legal drafting is the preparation of the schedule of damages and the counter-schedule. The rules relating to these documents are sparse. However these are important documents, often impacting upon the credibility…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY
This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year. As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS…
PROVING THINGS 45: IF YOU CAN'T PROVE LOSS THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This series (and this blog) have looked at several cases where a party has asserted a loss but not been able to prove it. There are a large number of cases where a party fails to put the basic information…
PROVING THINGS 41: PROVING DAMAGES – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY
There was one part of the argument in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB) that justifies closer examination. That is the claimant’s suggestion that the question of damages be put off. A party struggling to prove damages at trial is…
PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK
A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages. This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker…
PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A "NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE"
It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive…
PROVING THINGS 33: CAUSATION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS AGAINST SOLICITORS
We have looked before at the decision in The Connaught Income Fund, Series 1 -v- Hewetts Solicitors [2016] EWHC 2286 (Ch). The previous post was in connection with witness evidence. However the judgment on the burden of proof is significant in terms…
PROVING THINGS 32: DAMAGES CLAIM STRUCK OUT AS UNSUSTAINABLE; APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED.
In Guney -v- Kingsley Napley [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan struck out part of the claimant’s claim for damages and refused the claimant permission to amend to plead new heads of damage. It could serve as an object…
OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION: PAY TENS OF MILLIONS IN COMPENSATION: ANOTHER WARNING LESSON
This blog has looked several times at the dangers of obtaining injunctions. A particular danger is the undertaking in damages that has to be given when obtaining an injunction to freeze assets. The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Fiona…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 3: A NUANCED APPROACH
We have looked several times before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after judgment has been entered*. The recent decision of Master Matthews in Merito Financial Services Limited -v- David Yelloly [2016] EWHC…
THE ARROYO CASE WAS A BIG & COMPLEX ACTION: THE PROBLEMS WERE SIMPLE (AND COMMON) 1: UNCHECKED SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES
The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC is 1885 paragraphs long. The trial lasted from the 15th October 2014 to the 5th March 2015, that is 62 court days. The judgment actually…
PROVING THINGS 24 : DAMAGES AND THE "BUT FOR TEST": WHEN IT GETS REALLY COMPLEX
The judgment of Mr Justice Foskett today in Reaney -v- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1676 (QB) is interesting reading. Not least because the parties could not agree what the Court of Appeal had decided and…
PROVING THINGS 18: DAMAGES; CAR HIRE; PROOF AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The burden is (usually) on a claimant to prove a loss. There is an interesting discussion on the need to prove “need” in the decision of District Judge Read in Frankland -v- U.K. Insurance Ltd (10th August 2015) which was…
PROVING THINGS 17: HEADS OF DAMAGE THAT WERE "ENTIRELY BOGUS"
The case of Perma-Soil UK Limited -v- Williams & Flintshire County Council [2016] EWHC 1087 (QB) was an unusual one. The claimant (unsuccessfully) brought a claim for damages for misfeasance in public office. However I want to look at the…
UNCERTAINTY AS TO DAMAGES: JUST HOLD ONTO THE MONEY UNTIL FULL TIME
In Gibbs -v- Leeds United Football Club Ltd [2016] EWHC 960 (QB) Mr Justice Langstaff made an order that dealt with the question of uncertainty in relation to the assessment of damages. Rather than speculate on sums to be paid…
PROVING THINGS 16: IF YOU DON'T PROVE IT YOU DON'T GET IT
In Undre & Down to Earth (London) Limited -v- the London Barrow of Harrow [2016] EWHC 931 a claimant failed, totally, to prove any loss. The judge found that there was a total failure by the claimant to prove…
PROVING THINGS 15: DAMAGES & EVIDENCE: GOING BACK TO COLLEGE
One harsh shock for many litigants occurs when they are asked to prove their damages at trial. We have looked several times when a litigant has come to grief at this stage, largely because there is no evidential support for…
PROVING THINGS 14: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS
The previous post in this series looked at the Court of Appeal decision in Bacciottini -v- Gotelee and Goldsmith [2016] EWCA Civ 170 where the court upheld an award of £250 in damages because of issues relating to mitigation of loss….
PROVING THINGS 13: LOSS, THERE WAS NO LOSS
The case of Bacciottini -v- Gotelee and Goldsmith [2016] EWCA Civ 170 is one that may have you scratching your head. The claimants claimed, at one stage, over £300,000 in damages. The judge awarded £250.00. It is a potent lesson…
SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES, WASTED COSTS AND THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH
It is important that the report of the decision in Brown -v- Haven by Flint Bishop in their post on wasted costs order is given wide publicity. The judgment of Deputy District Judge Lingard is available here. (This is one…
PROVING THINGS 3: THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE MEANS THE COURT WILL NOT SPECULATE
Another example of a failure to prove damages can be found in the decision of His Honour Judge Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Fairhurst Developments Limited -v- Collins [2016] EWHC 199 (TCC). KEY POINTS This is…
PROVING THINGS 2: EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MUST BE PITCH PERFECT
Another example of the need to prove damages can be seen in the Court of Appeal decision in Gartell & Son (a firm) -v- Yeovil Town Football & Athletic Club Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 62. It is another case that…
EVIDENCE, DAMAGES AND A SOLICITOR'S GOODWILL
The Court of Appeal decision in Karim -v- Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27 has already received some publicity, involving as it does litigation following the sale of a solicitor’s practice. However the decision also shows the dangers of not bringing…
PROPORTIONALITY AND SURVIVAL FOR LITIGATORS 4: CLAIM ONLY WHAT YOU CAN PROVE
Proportionality is, mostly, about money. The problems that proportionality causes increase in those cases where the sums recovered are much less than those originally sought. The over-claiming of damages is a dangerous tactic for many reasons. Not least it…
PROVING THINGS BY EVIDENCE: SUCH A QUAINT, OLD FASHIONED CONCEPT
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in One Money Mail Ltd -v- RIA Financial Services [2015] EWCA Civ 1084 highlights a surprisingly common theme in many judgments. A party wants damages but has simply failed to adduce the evidence…
INTEREST WHERE THE CLAIM WAS OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD:JUDGMENT ACT RATE NO LONGER APPROPRIATE
There were many procedural issues in the Court of Appeal decision in Oyesanya -v- Mid-Yorkshire Hospital Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 1049. Some of them will be looked at in later posts. Here we look at the appropriate approach of the…
SETTING OFF INTEREST AGAINST AN INTERIM PAYMENT: A HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Manna -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 2279 (QB) is a veritable goldmine for anyone who writes about civil procedure or personal injury damages. One of the, many, issues…
HIGHWAYMEN, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES ALL ON THE MENU.
There are some interesting observations in the judgment of Mr Recorder Acton David QC in Luffeorm Limited -v- Kitsons LLP [2015] EWHC B10(QB). This illustrates some important issues in relation to evidence and the need to prove damages. “The Highwayman’s…
LITIGATION RISKS AND MITIGATION OF LOSS: "MEDIATION IS A JUDGMENT CALL": WHEN IS A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE REASONABLE?
The issue of whether a failure to mediate represented a failure to mitigate loss was considered by Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Orientfield Holdings Ltd -v- Bird & Bird [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch). “Having embarked…
IF YOU CAN'T PROVE IT YOU DON'T GET IT: CALLING EVIDENCE AT COURT TO PROVE A LOSS: A WORKING EXAMPLE
A party claiming damages must bring evidence to court to prove the losses it claims. This is a simple statement. However adducing evidence which actually proves the losses claimed often gives rise to difficulties in all spheres of litigation. The…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT HARM RATHER THAN HELP AND A FAILURE TO PROVE DAMAGES: A HIGH COURT CASE EXAMINED
In Re-Use Collections Limited -v- Sendall & May Glass Recycling Ltd [2014] EWHC 3852 (QB) H.H. Judge Davies made some important observations about drafting witness statements. It is positively unwise to “cross-reference” witness statements to the evidence of other witnesses…
EVIDENCE: PROVING DAMAGES AND INTEREST ON DAMAGES: YOU CAN'T SUGAR THE PILL AND HAVE TO PROVE THE LOSS
The final paragraphs of the judgment of Mr Justice Eder in Sugar Hut Group -v- AJ Insurance [2014] EWHC 3352 (Comm) has some important lessons on the need to adduce evidence to prove losses. It also contains a discussion of…
INTEREST AND COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: WATCHORN –v- JUPITER CONSIDERED
There have been relatively few cases dealing with the approach of the courts under the new Part 36 provisions when a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer at trial. The judgment of HH Judge Purle QC in Watchorn -v-…
CAPS ON DAMAGES AND PART 36: THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
Some interesting and important points of procedure were considered today by H.H. Judge Hacon in Abbot -v- Design & Display Ltd [2014] EWHC 3243 (IPEC). Firstly in relation to the rules of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court and the damages…
SUCCESS FEES IN CHILDREN CASES: LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER PRACTICE
The question of deducting success fees from the damages of a child remains a vexed one. I am grateful to Gillian Shaw from Paul Rooney LLP Solicitors who sent me the following note in relation to the practice in Liverpool…
THE JUDGE, THE EXPERT, CAUSATION AND DAMAGES: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS MADE A BAD SITUATION WORSE
The decision of Foskett J in Reaney -v- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 2016 (QB) contains important observations on the role of the judge and the expert in assessing damages for care. It also contains a…
COSTS CLAIMED AS DAMAGES 2: THE CASE LAW IN DETAIL
I am grateful to P.J.Kirby Q.C. for responding to the previous post on costs claimed as damages. The situation is far more complex than the passage cited in the Rentokil case suggests. THE ISSUE P.J. asked whether the case of…
WHAT IS THE POSITION WHEN LEGAL COSTS ARE CLAIMED AS A HEAD OF DAMAGES?
The case of Rentokil Initial -v- Goodman Derrick LLP [2014] EWHC 2994 (Ch) was looked at in the previous post in relation to evidence. However it also raised an interesting issue as to the approach a court should take when a…
LITIGATION: EVIDENCE; MITIGATION OF LOSS AND "BLACK BOXES" IN THE EVIDENCE
The case of Rentokil Initial -v- Goodman Derrick LLP [2014] EWHC 2994 (Ch) contains some interesting observations on evidence. In particular what is the position when a party claims privilege and fails to disclose legal advice relating to a settlement…
NO SPECIFIC FORM OF WRITTEN NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO WITHDRAW A PART 36 OFFER: THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LEAVING A PART 36 OFFER OPEN
Part 36 offers are relatively easy to withdraw. This is demonstrated by the decision of Flaux J in of Supergroup Plc v JustEnough Software Corp Inc where he rejected an application for a declaration that the the claimant had validly…
OFFERS TO SETTLE: COSTS, CONDUCT AND A WHOLE LOT MORE: REHILL –v- RIDER HOLDINGS CONSIDERED
The case of Rehill –v- Rider Holdings [2014] EWCA Civ 42 offers quite a few lessons for litigators and litigants. In relation to offers and filing schedules of costs and the risks of litigation for litigants and lawyers. REHILL –v- RIDER…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES IF THE CLAIMANT HAS JUDGMENT OR THE DEFENCE HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT?
One important aspect of the new rules about relief from sanctions is that they apply to defendants as well. A defendant who is late in adducing evidence can be debarred from calling evidence as in the Durrant case. Here we…
THANKS FOR THE £500,000. NOW WHERE’S THE EXTRA £50,000 YOU OWE ME? KNOWING THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES FOR THE CLAIMANT IN THE NEW PART 36
The new provisions when a claimant beats their own Part 36 provide challenges (including potential negligence claims) for the claimant lawyer. A claimant who beats their own Part 36 offer at trial now obtains considerable benefit. CPR 36.13(3) states that…
You must be logged in to post a comment.