THE SOLICITOR’S DUTY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT
There is an interesting postcript to the judgment of Jon Turner Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Square Global Ltd v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB. “It is fundamental that the client must not make the selection…
DEFENCE STRUCK OUT FOLLOWING FAILURE TO GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE: SEVERE SANCTION WAS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE
In MKG Convenience Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 547 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions following a failure to comply with a peremptory order in relation to disclosure. The sanction was severe, however the circumstances…
THE DISCLOSURE PILOT: GUIDANCE GIVEN AS TO HOW IT SHOULD WORK: NOT A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT YOUR OPPONENT
There are two recent cases where the disclosure pilot is considered in detail. In McParland & Partners Ltd & Anor v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298 (Ch) Sir Geoffrey Vos. Chancellor of the High Court set out some definitive guidance as…
GDPR AND THE CIVIL LITIGATOR (1) : USEFUL LINKS FOR LITIGATORS
The post earlier this week that highlighted the fact that an applicant had spent £40,000 unsuccessfully trying to obtain documents that would have been freely available under GDPR has led me to contemplate a series of articles on litigators and…
SEEKING FURTHER DISCLOSURE: DON’T GO IMPORTING STONES FROM A NEIGHBOURING QUARRY: DISCLOSURE PILOT PREVAILS
In Maher v Maher & Anor [2019] EWHC 3613 (Ch) HHJ Hodge (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for disclosure. There are a number of important points here, including the need for an application for further disclosure to…
APPLICATION FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: COURT’S DISCRETION EXERCISED AGAINST THE APPLICANT
In Hussain v Medical Defence Union & Anor [2020] EWHC 157 (QB) Clive Sheldon QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application for pre-action disclosure. This judgment makes it clear that pre-action disclosure is, ultimately, a matter of…
PROVING THINGS 171: A TALE OF TWO TELEVISION PRESENTERS (AND OF A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL ON VITAL ISSUES)
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in the case of Ahmed -v- BBC (10th January 2019) has already received wide publicity. It is worthwhile looking at the paucity, often the total absence of evidence, on many key issues on the…
THE COURT WOULD NOT EXTEND THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT TO ALLOW CLAIMANT TO SEEK TO RECOVER SUMS FROM A THIRD PARTY
The interesting thing about writing a blog on civil procedure is that – despite the apparent narrowness of the subject – new issues come up all the time. You can never say you have “seen it all”. I was reading…
COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT’S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) Master Davison allowed the claimant to produce as evidence the tapes they had recorded of their consultations with the defendant’s medical experts. This decision raises some interesting issues. (The case…
REDACTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO BE DISCOURAGED: THINGS COULD TURN OUT BADLY FOR THE REDACTOR
In Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann was critical of a decision to redact elements of documents disclosed in an application to set aside a statutory demand. “unnecessary and inappropriate redactions are…
AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS
Appeals are always difficult. The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test. It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…
PROVING THINGS 161: DOCUMENTS BEING DELIBERATELY DESTROYED AND EXPERTS WHO WERE OF VERY LIMITED ASSISTANCE
The judgment in Bajaj Healthcare Ltd v Fine Organics Ltd [2019] EWHC 2316 (Ch) is in what could appear to be a fairly dry dispute about the supply of goods. As the judge observed this was not a simple sale…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
In Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application for disclosure of the defendants’ funding arrangements. “Beyond this is the common-sense point, that the Court will not be keen to allow…
FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
PROVING THINGS 149: A JUDGE CAN FIND DISHONESTY ON THE FACTS BEFORE THEM EVEN IF IT IS NOT PLEADED
We are staying with the decision of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC). The claimant in that case had not pleaded fraud. The judge rejected the argument that the absence…
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…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 1: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR
I have been at the APIL annual conference this week. Ostensibly to give a talk about expert evidence, but a blogger (indeed any practising lawyer) can never miss an opportunity to pick up ideas. I went to a “Fee earner…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of ongoing litigation were being put copied onto social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…