Monthly Archives: June 2014

NO SPECIFIC FORM OF WRITTEN NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO WITHDRAW A PART 36 OFFER: THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LEAVING A PART 36 OFFER OPEN

Part 36 offers are relatively easy to withdraw. This is demonstrated by the decision of Flaux J in of Supergroup Plc v JustEnough Software Corp Inc  where he rejected an application for a declaration that the the claimant had validly accepted a Part 36 offer made by the defendant. The offer had been validly withdrawn […]

“MISAPPLICATION OF THE WORD SANCTION”: EXTENDING TIME ON A CONSENT ORDER IS NOT AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: SERVICE -v- BEACKON CONSIDERED

The case of Service Insurance Company Ltd -v- Beackon is briefly reported on Lawtel on the 26th June 2014.   It is a High Court decision by Andrews J where he rejected an appeal by an insurance company against an order extending time to comply with the terms of a consent order. THE FACTS The […]

WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE FOR FACTS: KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS (AND WHY IT MATTERS)

The recent Leeds Law Society Civil Litigation event reminded me of a similar meeting with judges over 25 years ago.  The Registrars (District Judges) gave a talk to local articled clerks (trainee solicitors). There was a basic message delivered in  that talk that remains totally relevant today. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS In those […]

ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK AND THE FAST TRACK: WHAT IS MEANT BY “ANY AMOUNT NOT IN DISPUTE”?

In the case of Akhtar -v- Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 the Court of Appeal gave guidance on CPR 26 and the matters to be considered when a determination is made as to allocation between the Fast Track and the Small Claims Track. THE ISSUES WHAT SUMS WERE “IN DISPUTE”. The claimant claimed damages of […]

WITNESS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RELIED ON AT TRIAL IF SERVED LATE AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GIVEN

Lawtel today reported the case of Davies -v- Liberty Place [2014] EWHC 2034 (Admin). In that case Leggatt J stated that a party who served a witness statement late was not automatically precluded from relying on that statement at trial.  However that decision was made on the 16th April 2014, on the same day as the […]

INSTRUCTING EXPERT WITNESSES: VIEWS FROM “ACROSS THE POND”

Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions.  The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known.  It is clear that the issues are international.  A recent article in the American Journal “The Lawyerist” contains some interesting observations on the instruction of experts. TEN TIPS FOR EFFECTIVELY USING RETAINED EXPERT WITNESSES There […]

PRO BONO COSTS ORDERS: THE SECTION, GUIDES AND LINKS

I am grateful to Nick Hanning for pointing out one aspect of the judgement in the recent  Paratus case   that he, rightly, says would benefit from wider publicity.  The Court made a Pro Bono Costs order under section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 NICK’S COMMENTS “This case deserves publicity for the reasons […]

UNILATERAL DECISIONS TO VARY ORDERS WILL LEAD TO TROUBLE AND AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT: PARATUS AMC EXAMINED

The case of Paratus AMC Ltd -v- Lewis [2014] EWHC 1577 (Ch) has been placed on Bailli following an order by the judge to highlight an issue of contempt of court. As such it clearly requires wider publication. It also contains important lessons about compliance.  THE FACTS The claimant was ordered to pay £181,461.46, into court, […]

FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (OR CONFESSIONS OF A RELUCTANT BLOGGER)

Today marks the first anniversary of the setting up of this blog, tomorrow marks the anniversary of the first post. It gives an opportunity to recap (and reminisce).  CIVIL PROCEDURE IN JUNE 2013 When the blog started civil procedure was a slightly obscure subject. Litigators had to know about limitation, service of the claim form […]

GIVING EVIDENCE CAN BE A GRIZZLY BUSINESS: HOW DO THE COURTS ASSESS WHOSE ACCOUNT IS CORRECT?

In Grizzly Business Ltd -v- Stena Drilling Ltd [2014] EWHC 1920 (Comm) a judge had to decide between two competing versions of what was said in a telephone call three years earlier in a case when $2.5 million was at stake. The case provides an example of how the courts assess oral evidence. THE DISPUTE […]