Monthly Archives: February 2014

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY E-MAIL: A USEFUL BLAST FROM THE PAST

The problems of serving by e-mail have been discussed several times on this blog.  The need for the recipient to “opt in” to receipt coupled with potential problems in proving service can give rise to difficulties.   I know from e-mails and tweets I have received that many litigators are facing problems with their opponents arguing […]

TEN LIMITATION MYTHS THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW

I am giving a webinar for CLT on the 4th March. Booking details can be found here “Limitation and PI Claims: 10 Myths that Every Practitioner Should Know” This webinar identifies and debunks 10 of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding limitation in PI claims. Presented by Gordon Exall, barrister, author and blogger, it […]

NEW RULES OF COURT: COMING INTO FORCE 1st & 6th APRIL: NEW “STAKEHOLDER” RULES

The  Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules were passed yesterday.   There is a whole mass of detail. NEW “STAKEHOLDER” PROVISIONS One interesting aspect is the introduction of a new CPR Part 86  new “Stakeholder” provisions. These replace the old High Court “interpleader” proceedings.  These new rules, for the most part, come into force in early April. […]

JUDGES ARE NOT ADMINISTRATORS: VIEWS FROM THE TELEGRAPH: THE STRANGE NEW CONCEPT OF “JUSTICE”

I put up a number of posts and articles in the recent articles and posts section of the blog most days.  I will, occasionally,  draw attention to a particular post.  Today I have to draw attention to the article in the Telegraph blog by cutley.  I recommend that everyone read the whole blog post NOT […]

HOW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE COURT SERVICE: A MODEL LETTER

Following the blog posts  about troubles with the court about issue and secret letters which appear to govern how proceedings can be issued came the following comment from Dominic Cooper of I E Legal. “It surprises me that any of this is a surprise! I have seen numerous examples of this sort of thing over […]

WAHID -v- SKANSKA: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

I set out the result of this case in some detail in an earlier post. At that time the transcript of the case (which relates to compliance with peremptory orders) was not available.   The transcript is now available on Bailli.

REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: AEI –v- ALSTOM UK CONSIDERED

Cases relating to relief from sanctions are being reported on a daily basis. Here we look at the decision yesterday of Mr Justice Smith in Associated Electrical Industries Ltd –v- Alstom Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 4330 (Com).  A case where the claimant was 20 days late in serving the particulars of claim and, consequently, the […]

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE SECRET STATE: HOW FAR CAN IT GO?

Yesterday I wrote of problems when the court was refusing to issue proceedings alleging (wrongly) that they were statute barred.  It is becoming frightening that important issues of law are being made (or purportedly made) by administrators.  This led to a response in the comment section which is equally frightening.  It requires wider publicity. THE […]

TROUBLES WITH THE COURT: REFUSING TO ISSUE AND STRIKING OUT BECAUSE OF ALLEGED LIMITATION ISSUES: MORE EXAMPLES AND CASE LAW THAT MAY HELP

Hot on the heels of the complaint about the court wrongfully striking out an action came another, remarkable story about the court refusing to issue proceedings because of alleged limitation issues. THE REMARKABLE STORY Here it is in its original form. “Nothing new. Infant case. Issued at about 3 years post accident. Well within limitation […]

HEAD TURNING, NAVIGATION AND MITCHELL PART 2: A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF SUMMIT NAVIGATION

I set out the main part of the judgment of Leggatt J in Summit Navigation Ltd –v- Generali Romani [2014] EWHC (Comm) yesterday.  Here I look at the salient parts of the judgment and highlight the very real dilemma that this case, and the “Mitchell” principles generally, create for litigators. THE “MITCHELL DILEMMA” I have […]