THE DANGERS OF PLEADING DISHONESTY: PART OF REPLY TO DEFENCE STRUCK OUT
In Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd v Circus Apartments Ltd [2018] EWHC 1376 (Ch) Master Shuman provides an succinct summary of the principles relating to pleading dishonesty. Part of a Reply that alleged dishonesty was struck out. THE CASE The claimant…
SIX YEARS ON: YOU SHOULD KNOW THE CASE YOU WANT TO PLEAD: CLAIMANT’S ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO PARTICULARISE CASE
The judgment of HHJ Platts in Wrightson -v- Flor Projects Limited [2018] EWHC 3036 (QB) provides, amongst other things, an important warning on the need to plead and particularise a case properly. The case shows that when a claimant has…
STATEMENTS OF CASE: KEEP THEM SIMPLE: NO NEED TO PLEAD A REFERENCE TO SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN IN A CASE ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT
In Portland Stone Firms Ltd & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors [2018] EWHC 2341 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith had some telling observations about the way in which statements of case should be drafted. “The applications before the Court have…
PROVING THINGS 126: FAILURE TO PROVE DISHONESTY
The judgment in Autogas (Europe) Ltd v Ochocki & Ors [2018] EWHC 2345 (Ch) highlights the difficulties for a claimant who has to prove fraud as an essential element of their claim. The judgment also emphasises the needs to plead allegations…
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…
PLEADING AND ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE CLAIMANT KNEW WHAT WAS COMING (ON THIS OCCASION)
We have already looked at the factual findings in Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671. Of equal interest is that part of the judgment where the judge considered the claimant’s argument that the defendant should not be allowed to argue fundamental…
DAMAGES CLAIMED BUT NOT PLEADED: REALLY STRANGE WITNESS STATEMENTS; PARTISAN EXPERTS: THE ICI CASE IS BACK IN COURT
If you are ever looking for an example of matters going awry in litigation then read the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC). All the usual problematic issues…
FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED
The previous post dealt with a judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturning a judgment in favour of the claimant. The judgment in Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB) is in similar terms. Only on…
I’M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT – BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT’S CASE
The judgment in Auckland v Khan & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1148 is in short form. However it does illustrate the difficulties of appealing on “pleading points” and findings of fact. “There are certainly cases in which the failure to put…
YOUR CLAIM FORM IS, WELL, PRETTY DAMN HOPELESS – AND WITNESS EVIDENCE CAN’T PUT IT RIGHT
The observations made by Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd [2018] EWHC 985 (Comm) are of general interest. They highlight the need for statements of case to be properly particularised and also highlight the dangerous…
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]…
WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)
The judgment in Premier Paper Group Ltd v Buchanan McPherson Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 15 contains some interesting observations about the way in which the parties departed from their pleadings. Although the claim succeeded this case how important it is that…
ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
I am grateful to barrister Tom Vonberg for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision today in Howlett -v- Ageas [2017] EWCA Civ 1696. Howlett & anr v Davies & anr- jt Final-1. Tom acted for the…
SEARCHING FOR “THE GOLDEN RULE OF PLEADING”: BREVITY, BRER RABBIT AND – GOING TO HELL
It is interesting to note the search term that leads people to this blog. Today I commented on one that led many, many practitioners to a search for the golden rule of pleading. Be warned not all of these replies…
WHEN THE PLEADINGS SHOULD NOT NAME SOMEONE: HIGH COURT OBSERVATIONS
In Huda v Wells & Ors [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin made some observations that make it clear that it may be prudent for statements of case not to name vulnerable individuals. THE CASE The defendants set aside an…
YOU CAN’T APPEAL ON A POINT THAT YOU HAVEN’T PLEADED: DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS GO DOWN THE PAN
There are periodic reminders from the court as to how important the statement of case is. This can be seen in the judgment today in Watt v Dignan & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1390. “I do not agree that a…
SIGNING A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: A STARK REMINDER FROM THE COUNTY COURT ONLINE PILOT PRACTICE DIRECTION
I have looked before at the issues that arise when the legal representative signs a statement of truth on behalf of a client. These issues are shown in stark terms in the Practice Direction 51S – The County Court Online…
ABSENCE OF RISK ASSESSMENTS LEADS TO JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BEING OVERTURNED: THE SECOND PART OF POWELL -v- WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL
The first part of the decision of Mr Justice Jay in Powell -v- Watford Borough Council [2017] EWHC 2283 (QB)was considered in detail in the previous post. Mr Justice Jay held that a peremptory order had not been complied with and the defence…
THROWING EVERYTHING IN AT TRIAL- INCLUDING THE KITCHEN CABINET: YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR CASE (AND PLEAD IT)
There are some important observations in the judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Neptune (Europe) Ltd v Devol Kitchens Ltd [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat) about the need to plead and put a case at trial. An attempt to introduce a…