CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – NOVEMBER 2019
Here we have links to blogs and articles about civil procedure and costs from November 2019. COSTS Costs Barrister Blaming others Costs Barrister The undiscovered country Herbert Smith Freehills Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction to award claimant interim payment on account of costs…
PROVING THINGS 169: WHEN THE DEFENDANT CALLS NO (LAY) EVIDENCE AND TRIES TO PROVE ITS CASE THROUGH THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESSES
There are a number of interesting aspects of the judgment of HHJ Coe in Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (false imprisonment in hospital) [2019] EWHC 77 (QB). One of which is the defendant’s failure to call any…
PROVING THINGS 168: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:STATEMENTS OF OPINION OR BELIEF CARRY NO WEIGHT
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Irani v Duchon [2019] EWCA Civ 1846 adds to the Proving Things series in relation to a failure to establish key matters at trial (it also gives me an opportunity to promote the…
PROVING THINGS 167: BUNDLES, EXPERTS, ABSENT WITNESS, UNPLEADED DEFENCES AND… SEWAGE: ALL MODERN LITIGATION IS HERE…
The judgment of HHJ Russen (QC) (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Kivells Ltd v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 2846 (TCC), contains a number of interesting scenarios in relation to civil evidence. Many of the common problems of…
PROVING THINGS 166: LYING IN COURT (& HOW THE JUDGE DECIDES WHO IS…)
A search term led someone to this blog today “how is it legal to get away with lying in court“. There is a whole host of material on the question of what is a “lie”, compared to a false or…
PROVING THINGS 165: CLAIMANT IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE PROVES NEGLIGENCE BUT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION
In Bell v Bedford Hospital NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 2704 (QB) the claimant established clinical negligence but failed to prove causation. THE CASE The claimant suffered a major stroke that left her with significant permanent disabilities. She claimed that…
PROVING THINGS 163: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS: A CLAIMANT NEED NOT TAKE THE RISK OF STARTING UNCERTAIN LITIGATION AGAINST A THIRD PARTY
The need for a defendant to prove a failure to mitigate is something that has been covered before on this blog. In Natixis SA v Marex Financial & Ors [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm) Mr Justice Bryan considered the legal principles. …
PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH
Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come. However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts. This was not a case…
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…
NOT GIVING SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF WHEN A SOLICITOR FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT: A PROBLEM BREAKING OUT ALL OVER
A post yesterday commented on the dangers of a solicitor (or indeed anyone) making a witness statement without giving the sources of their information and belief. An identical issue arose in the judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Islestarr Holdings…
PROVING THINGS 159: A FORMULAIC APPROACH TO EVIDENCE WHICH LEADS TO CONFIRMATION BIAS: THE DANGERS OF PRO FORMA EVIDENCE GATHERING
This blog has looked, several times, at the way in which the family courts look at both expert and lay witness evidence. The judgments of the family courts contain many examples of issues that arise throughout civil litigation. We see…
PROVING THINGS 158: NOW – WHY WOULDN’T BANKS WANT TO REVEAL DETAILS OF THE BONUSES THEY PAID?
The judgment in Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Ors v HM Revenue and Customs [2019] EWHC 1922 (Ch) demonstrates a strange position on the part of the claimant bank. The claimant banks did not adduce any evidence to prove…
PROVING THINGS 156: MEDICAL EXPERTS, CAUSATION, CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, ABSENT EVIDENCE
In ZZZ v Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1642 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham found that there had been a breach of duty by the defendant hospital, but those breaches had no causal relevance. The case is interesting for…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
PROVING THINGS 155: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT GOES WRONG: HOTEL PROPRIETOR NOT LIABLE TO GUEST FOR ASSAULT BY TRESPASSER
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1593 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans found that proprietors of a hotel had not been in breach of duty when some of their guests had been assaulted by a…
PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE
In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB) Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case. Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…
PROVING THINGS 151: DEPENDENCY IN A FATAL ACCIDENT ACT CLAIM: ADULT CHILD DEPENDANTS RECEIVE DAMAGES FOR FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS TO WEDDINGS AND TOWARDS THEIR FIRST HOME
In AB v KL [2019] EWHC 611 (QB) David Edwards QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the nature of the evidence needed to establish damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is also important both…
PROVING THINGS 150: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MOVE FROM LEGAL AID TO CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS A REASONABLE STEP
In YZ v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC B4 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker found that the claimant had not established good grounds for changing from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement. Although this is a costs issue, it…
PROVING THINGS 147: CLAIM FOR NOT PURSUING NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS LEADS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY: NO DAMAGES FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE”
The judgment in Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce also contains yet another example of claimants failing to prove any loss at trial. There was no evidence to support any claim for…
BREACH OF REGULATIONS IS IPSO FACTO NEGLIGENT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON s.69 OF THE ERRA
I am grateful to Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the judgment of HH Gore QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Tonkins -v- Tapp (7th December 2018). The judgment deals with the issue of the relevance…
