WHEN YOUR PLEADED CASE IS DIFFERENT TO YOUR EVIDENCE: YOU ARE TAKING A HUGE GAMBLE (WHICH DIDN’T PAY OFF…)
The judgment of Gavin Mansfield QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Puharic v Silverbond Enterprises Ltd [2021] EWHC 351 (QB) highlights the difficulties that can occur if the pleaded case differs from the evidence. Put bluntly running a…
REPLIES TO DEFENCES: WHY AND WHEN…
A post yesterday made me think that this is an opportune time to re-visit the function of the Reply in litigation. I am here concerned only with a Reply to a Defence which is, essentially voluntary, not a Defence to…
YOU CANNOT USE A REPLY TO PLEAD MATTERS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
About ten minutes ago I sent off the material for a webinar I am giving tomorrow on drafting statements of case. Inevitably, therefore, a new and relevant case arrived on BAILLI* [the material was subsequently amended to include this] . …
STATEMENTS OF CASE, DRAFTING, DANGERS AND PITFALLS: WEBINAR 17th FEBRUARY 2021
I am giving a webinar on the 17th February 2021 on avoiding problems with Statements of Case. This is part series of webinars on the theme of “staying safe” in the running of personal injury cases. The webinars look at…
SUING A CLAIMANT WHO HAS ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER: THE PROFOUND PROBLEMS WHEN PLEADING FRAUD: YOU CAN’T “WAIT AND SEE”
There is an interesting history in the judgment of Mr Justice Saini in in Kasem v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 136 (QB). It is a case that is an object lesson in the stringent requirements…
CLAIMANT’S CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE IT SAID TWO CONTRADICTORY THINGS: “JANUS-FACED” PLEADINGS NOT ALLOWED
The judgment of Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Betesh Partnership -v- Evans [2020] EWHC 1589 (QB) contains interesting observations on the need for a claimant to plead a case that is not inconsistent. I am working and citing from the…
IF YOU FIGHT AN “ALL OR NOTHING CASE” THEN YOU CAN’T COMPLAIN IF YOU GET NOTHING
In Amin v Amin & Ors [2020] EWHC 2675 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee made an important observation about the way in which parties present their case. It may benefit some litigants to put their case on an alternative basis. THE…
“LITIGANTS SHOULD BE TERRIFIED IF THEY LIE TO THE COURT”: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH
There are many, many cases about committal proceedings in commercial cases. Some judges have observed that they appear to be used tactically. Most are confined to their own facts. However in North of England Coachworks Ltd v Khan [2020] EWHC…
GOT TO DRAFT A DEFENCE? SOME HELPFUL GUIDANCE FROM OUR CANADIAN COUSINS
There is relatively little guidance given on the process involved in drafting a defence. There is some useful help given the the Law Society of Ontario Practice Area Resource “How to Prepare a Statement of Defence”. Some of this…
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES STRUCK OUT: APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED: CLAIMANT FAILED TO USE THEIR LOAF AS CLAIM IS SLICED…
The judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford in The Leicester Bakery (Holdings) Ltd v Ridge And Partners LLP [2020] EWHC 2430 (TCC) shows the necessity of being able to particularise a claim for damages. What it demonstrates is that, in claims…
“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL” ? A SEARCH TERM THAT COMES UP FREQUENTLY
On the 3rd September 2020 I am presenting a webinar on Pleadings (Statements of Case) for Personal Injury Lawyers. One of the issues being looked at is drafting a defence. One of the regular search terms that lead to this…
ACTION NOT STRUCK OUT BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH AND WILFUL MISCONDUCT NOT FULLY PARTICULARISED
In Palladian Partners LP & Ors v The Republic of Argentina & Anor [2020] EWHC 1946 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill refused to strike out pleadings alleging, bad faith, wilful misconduct and manifest error. This is the second example recently of…
PLEADING (STATEMENTS OF CASE) FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS (LIVE WEBINAR) 3rd SEPTEMBER 2020
The discussion of statements of case yesterday in the case of Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1856 (TCC) has led, almost directly, to a webinar on statements of case. I am giving a webinar on the…
THE STATEMENT OF CASE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: JUDGE PROVIDES A LESSON IN THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PLEADING
In Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1856 (TCC) Mr Justice Pepperall sent out a clear reminder of the basic purpose of pleading. He rejected an argument by the defendant that a particulars of claim should…
COVID REPEATS 48: REPLIES AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: A PRIMER
Today we are taking a look back at what turned out to be the second most read post on this blog in 2016. The basic rules about when to file a Reply and, more importantly, a defence to counterclaim. A…
CLAIM STRUCK OUT FOR INADEQUATE PLEADING: ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU HIT THE BOTTLE
I don’t normally write about the cases relating to defamation and pleading, this is a very niche area and there is usually little of general interest. However the judgment of Mr Justice Nicol in BrewDog Plc & Anor v Frank…
THE IMPORTANCE OF STATEMENTS OF CASE: THE TRIAL SHOULD NOT BECOME A “FREE FOR ALL”: COURT OF APPEAL SENDS OUT A WARNING
In Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 619 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of statements of case in relation to civil litigation. The statements of case should define the issues at trial. “It…
“STATEMENTS OF CASE PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN CIVIL LITIGATION WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DIMINISHED”: THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE LEARNING ACADEMY
In November 2018 I wrote about the decision of HHJ Klein in UK Learning Academy Ltd v The Secretary of State for Education [2018] EWHC 2915 (Comm). An appeal from that judgment has been heard, and dismissed, by the Court of Appeal. …
THAT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL IN A DEFENCE: THE KEY CASES CONSIDERED
The discussion yesterday of the decision in Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB) gives rise to review cases on pleading a defence, in particular the important distinction between a “denial” and a “non-admission”. It is…
PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DENIAL AND A NON-ADMISSION: HIGH COURT GOES BACK TO BASIC PRINCIPLES
There are some interesting observations about statements of case in the judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB). This case emphasises the difference between a non-admission and a denial…
PLEADINGS ARE IMPORTANT: NO LUCK IN TRYING TO ARGUE AN UNPLEADED CASE ON APPEAL: NOT A “DRY, TECHNICAL POINT”
In Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 144 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by unsuccessful claimants. In the judgment it was observed that the claimants were attempting to run a case…
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH (3): THE SCARY STUFF (THE REALLY SCARY STUFF)
This is the third (and final) post in the series that examines the importance of the statement of truth. Here we look at the clear and start warnings given by the courts about the importance of the statement of truth….
NEW RULE CHANGES: THE RULES WILL NOW GET IT RIGHT ON PLEADING MITIGATION OF LOSS: A SMALL CHANGE THAT TOOK FAR TOO LONG
The 113th update to Practice Direction Amendments makes a small but important change to the rules relating to mitigation of loss. In short it puts the position right and stops the Practice Direction being the shambles it was before. This…
NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE: PLEADING SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE HIRE OF A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE
The 113th update to Practice Direction Amendments comes into force on the 6th April 2020. It introduces new, and quite specific, obligations on a claimant claiming the cost of a replacement hire vehicle. THE NEW RULE There is a new Paragraph…
PLEADINGS: CLAIMANTS – TELL THE DEFENDANT THE CASE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE PUT AGAINST THEM
There are some interesting observations as to how a claimant should plead their case in the judgment in Walsh v CP Hart & Sons Ltd [2020] EWHC 37 (QB). “If, as in this case, the Claimant produces only at trial…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN DEFENDANT FILES AN INADEQUATE PLEADING
The Denton principles were considered in an unusual context by Mr Justice Julian Knowles in Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB). THE CASE The claimant is a Circuit Judge. He brought an action for harassment against the defendant….
SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND THE “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY CLAIMANT”: THE TRAP OPERATED AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED
The judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in Maggistro-Contenta & Anor v O’Shea & Anor [2019] EWHC 3035 (Ch) is a prime example of difficulties being caused because of a mistake in relation to the rules relating to service. It…
COUNTER-SCHEDULES: WORDS OF WISDOM FROM TWITTER
Twitter this afternoon gave rise to a number of interesting discussions about the role of the counter-schedule. I got permission to share some of the contributions. THE START It started with Sarah Pritchard QC looking for ideas for a talk…
LATE SERVICE OF A REPLY: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED – IF IT HAD MATTERED
In Sports Mantra India Private Ltd & Anor v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2019] EWHC 2514 (Ch) Deputy High Court Judge Lance Ashworth QC considered the question of whether relief from sanctions should be granted when a Reply…
POINTS HAVE TO BE PLEADED: APPLICATION TO AMEND AT TRIAL CORRECTLY DISALLOWED: PLEADINGS ARE THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF EACH PARTY’S CASE ARE KNOWN
In Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd v Mallon & Ors [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch) Sir Gerald Barling, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed an appeal against a judge’s refusal to consider a point that was not pleaded. The…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 52: THE REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: TO REPLY OR NOT TO REPLY – THAT IS THE QUESTION
Here we take a quick look at the rules and practice directions in relation to filing a Reply and Defence to a Counterclaim. In particular claimants should be very aware of the fact that a defendant can apply to enter…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 49: THE CASE SUMMARY: THE RULES, SOME GUIDANCE AND AN EXAMPLE
A search term arrived on this blog today “how do I prepare a case summary for a civil litigation case”. A Case Summary should be prepared in virtually every Multi Track case. Very little is written about it. THE RULES…
SIGNATURES, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND STATEMENTS OF TRUTH: A BRIEF REFRESHER
One aspect of the decision in Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 that may be unique is the fact that the court will be considering the statement of truth certified by an electronic signature. That case emphasises, if…
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 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different. There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 37: THE EVER SO HUMBLE REPLY: CANNOT BE USED TO BRING A NEW CLAIM
The closing passages of the judgment in Donovan & Anor v Grainmarket Asset Management LLP [2019] EWHC 1023 (QB) dealt with the Claimant’s reply. It is worthwhile looking at the rules and case law relating to this aspect of civil procedure. …
LIMITS ON THE DUTY OF COUNSEL TO ADVISE ON COSTS AND FUNDING: ALSO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM – IF YOU CAN’T PLEAD A CASE PROPERLY ITS PROBABLY INDICATIVE OF A POOR CASE
The judgment in Andrews & Ors v Messer Beg Ltd [2019] EWHC 911 (Ch) contains an interesting discussion on a barrister’s duty to advise on the funding of litigation. The Part 20 claimant, having had the particulars of claim struck out, …
“PLEADINGS THAT ARE OF SUCH DISPROPORTIONATE LENGTH AND DENSITY”: “THE CLAIM BECAME IMPENETRABLE AND UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE TO DEAL WITH”
In Galazi& Anor v Christoforou & Ors [2019] EWHC 670 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered the costs consequences of amendment and the effective discontinuance of certain causes of action. There are two particular aspects of the judgment of general interest. Firstly…
THE SPI NORTH (NON-ADMISSION IN PLEADING CASE) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE SECOND POINT: COMPELLING EVIDENCE NEEDED AND NO SATELLITE LITIGATION PLEASE
Yesterday’s post on SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 7 concentrated upon the Court of Appeal guidance in relation to the drafting of a pleading. However the second point on which the claimant’s appeal …
A WHOLE COURT OF APPEAL CASE ABOUT WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DRAFT A “NON-ADMISSION”: NO DUTY ON A DEFENDANT TO SEEK OUT INFORMATION FROM A THIRD PARTY WHEN DRAFTING A DEFENCE
In the judgment today in SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 7 the Court of Appeal carried out a close analysis of the rules relating to pleading a defence. In particular the…
THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH AND WITNESSES WITH POOR ENGLISH: PRACTICE DIRECTION 22
The post earlier today about witness statements in a foreign language led (almost immediately) to a telephone enquiry as to what happens when a party cannot read or understand the statement of truth in a statement of case. The answer…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 22: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ADOPTS ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD
This post follows on from the previous post in relation to pleading the Defendant’s case in the alternative. Here we are looking at cases where a defendant pleads allegations of negligence and the claimant uses those allegations as allegations against the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 21: PLEADING IN THE ALTERNATIVE: BINKS -v- SECURICOR
Can a claimant plead two alternative cases? This is an issue that often arises in personal injury litigation, where the basic facts are disputed. A claimant may wish to argue that the defendant remains liable – even on the defendant’s…
LATE SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION: IT MAY STILL BE DANGEROUS – AND HERE’S WHY
We have looked twice already at the judgment in Mark v Universal Coatings & Services Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3206 (QB). One of the key findings in that case was that the claimant, who had served the particulars of claim, medical…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.