PLEADING AND PROVING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DISHONESTY: MULLARKE -v- BROAD: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE
Great care needs to be taken in pleading allegations of fraud or dishonesty. In particular the pleader needs to be sure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the pleading. This was considered in some detail by Lewison J in…
LIMITATION IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM: DATE OF ACCRUAL; LATENT DAMAGE AND AMENDING UNDER CPR 17.4.(2): A CASE IN POINT
In Interface Europe Ltd -v- Premier Hanks Dyers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2610 (QB) Judge Saffman (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the issue of the relevant date of accrual of a cause of action in a breach…
WHAT CAN THE DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 2: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
We have looked before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after a judgment has been entered. A case reported today examines this issue in relation to judgment in a clinical negligence action. SYMES -V-…
AMENDING PLEADINGS: HAS THE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED? WHERE DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE?
The Court of Appeal decision today in Mercer -v- Ballinger [2014] EWCA Civ 996 may appear to be an issue of esoteric civil procedure. However the decision is an important one with far-ranging practical consequences for a party seeking to…
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…
“FAILING TO SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES” AND LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS : GROARKE –V- FONTAINE CONSIDERED
Groarke –v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1679 (QB) centred on a Road Traffic Accident that happened in November 2009. The central issue on appeal was whether a late application to amend the defence to plead contributory negligence should have been allowed….
PLEADING MITIGATION OF LOSS: WHY THE PRACTICE DIRECTION IS (ALMOST ALWAYS) WRONG AND THE RULES ARE A SHAMBLES
It is well established law that the burden of proving a failure to mitigate loss lies with the defendant. It is for the defendant to establish that the claimant failed to act reasonably. Somewhat surprisingly a Practice Direction in…
