Monthly Archives: October 2013

EXTENSIONS OF TIME WHEN THERE IS A MINOR BREACH: FULL TRANSCRIPT IN RAYYAN AL IRAQ CO LTD NOW AVAILABLE

The case of Raayan Al Iraq Co. Ltd –v- Trans Victory Machine Inc [2013] EWHC 2696 (Comm) was mentioned in an earlier post. The full transcript is now available and provides useful reading for those applying for retrospective extensions of time when there are minor breaches of the rules.  THE FACTS OF RAAYAN The claimant […]

COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 OFFERS: ANOTHER INTERESTING EXAMPLE

Following the earlier post on Part 36 offers I am grateful to Marcus Davies from DWF for pointing me in the direction of the decision of Mrs Justice Andrews in Davison –v- Leitch [2013] EWHC 3092 (QB). This provides another interesting example of the court considering the costs consequences when a defendant fails to beat […]

THE COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 OFFERS: DO THEY ALWAYS APPLY? THE CASES IN DETAIL

The costs consequences when a claimant fails to beat a Part 36 from the defendant are well known and long established.   The advantages for a claimant who now beats their own offer were examined in a previous post.  Here we look at the rules and recent cases relating to Part 36 and costs.  The rule […]

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS FEE REMISSIONS ORDER 2013

This Order came into force on the 7th October 2013. The aim is to put forward a standard fee remission system across a whole range of tribunals as well as the civil courts.   It is always prudent, when issuing proceedings, to consider whether your client may be eligible for fee remission.   USEFUL LINKS […]

MEDIATE OR ELSE? THE COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSING TO MEDIATE

 A recent post looked at the Court of Appeal mediation scheme and examined the potential penalties for a party refusing to mediate.  In PGF II SA –v- OMES Company I Limited [2013] EWCA CIV 1288 the Court of Appeal looked at the potential costs penalties when a party refuses to mediate.  THE FACTS PGF was […]

HANDBOOK FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: FIND IT AND USE IT!

The Judiciary have published a Handbook for Litigants in Person. It can be found here.  WHY YOU SHOULD READ IT I suggest every litigator has a look at it. 1.  You should ensure it is sent to every litigant in person you are against (it will save your client time, money and anguish in the […]

THEVARAJAH –V- RIORDAN NOW FULLY REPORTED: SECOND BITE OF CHERRY IN RELATION TO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

  The case of Thevarajah –v- Riordan has been discussed before.  Initially relief from sanctions was refused, however it was then granted at a second application.   Here we look at the decision in more detail, in particular the CPR 3.9 criteria; whether a second application for relief from sanctions can be made and what  the […]

THE DANGERS OF GETTING THE COURT FEES WRONG: IF THE FEES ARE NOT RIGHT – YOU HAVEN’T ISSUED

If proceedings are being issued at the last moment then it is imperative that the correct fee is lodged at court. A failure to send the correct fee will mean that proceedings are not properly issued.  This post looks at the decision in Page –v- Hewetts on the question of issuing and paying the correct […]

TEN MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR SHOULD KNOW.

There are a surprising number of “myths” that prevail in personal injury litigation. In particular in relation to limitation. Here, as part of the “avoiding negligence” series we look at 10 of these myths. Myth 1:  In a breach of contract case the limitation period is six years.  This is clearly a prevalent belief. In […]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED SECOND TIME AROUND: QUITE A TWIST TO THIS TALE?

The case of Thevarajah –v-Riordan has been reported before at https://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/relief-from-sanctions-a-case-where-relief-was-refused/    when the court refused to grant relief from sanctions where the defendant had failed to comply with disclosure obligations.   However the case is now reported (on Lawtel) a second time. The defendant made a second application for relief and it was granted.   THE […]