APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING A DEFENCE – AFTER THE DEFENCE IS DUE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE
The judgment of Deputy Master Pickering in Billington v Davies & Anor [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch) has only recently appeared on BAILLI. It raises an interesting issue of how the courts should approach the question of a late application to extend…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL
Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything. Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”. Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…
STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT “TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES”
In Brown & Anor (t/a Maple Hayes Hall School) v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) Mr Edward Pepperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) struck out a defence that was . In giving the defendant another chance he made…
LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
We looked at the decision in Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16) in an earlier post. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018]…
LATE (BUT NOT VERY LATE) AMENDMENTS ALLOWED: LIMITATION DEFENCE WAS NOT “MUCKING AROUND AT THE LAST MOMENT”
In Vilca & Ors v XSTRATA Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart Smith allowed a late, but not “very late” application by the defendant to allow it to plead limitation. “To my mind… all of the…
COSTS AFTER A PART 36 OFFER AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: CONDUCT OF DEFENCE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INDEMNITY COSTS
I have written several times about the judgment of Thirlwall LJ in Marsh -v- MOJ*. I have been provided with a copy of a note of the judgment on costs given on the 31st July 2017. I am grateful to…
WHY LIFE IS NOW DANGEROUS FOR DEFENDANTS (ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DON’T FILE A DEFENCE ON TIME)
The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in ADVA Optical Networking Limited -v- Optron Holding Limited [2017] EWHC 1813 (TCC) highlights what a dangerous world this can be for defendants. A defendant who is late filing a defence, and where judgment has not been…
A “DEFENCE STRAIGHT OUT OF THE 1970S”: DEFENDANT’S PLEADINGS 40 YEARS OUT OF DATE
Some defences are inadequate. Some are (rightly) struck out. Some do not recognise the essential difference between a non-admission and a denial. A series of denials is, the case law makes clear, an inappropriate and archaic way of proceeding. “Churchill’s…
ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT
The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation. In addition to…
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DRAFT PLEADINGS THEN DO IT PROPERLY: A REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY
A post last month highlighted a case where a defendant obtained judgment in default on a counterclaim. The judge refused to set aside the judgment and, in effect, the claimant’s entire claim failed. There is a clear and obvious need…
PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" & A "DENIAL" EXPLORED
The decision of Mr Justice Bean in Dil -v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 2184 (QB) relates to a police force’s obligations in relation to the disclosure of details of undercover operations and informers. However it also deals…