Monthly Archives: April 2015

ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION

In Decker -v- Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170(QB)Mr Justice Warby set out the principles to be considered when a litigant seeks an adjournment of a hearing on the grounds of ill health. The judge held that there were five main factors to be considered.  Applying those to the facts of this case the application for an […]

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLIENT AFTER PROCTOR: A NEW TYPE OF LEGAL DRAFTING REQUIRING PARTICULAR SKILLS

In the Proctor -v- Raleys case the standard forms and letters written by the insurers came under close scrutiny at the trial and in the Court of Appeal. Professor Richard Moorhead provides an interesting angle on this issue in his blog on the subject. THE FLESCH-KINCAID READABILITY SCORE The Flesh-Kincaid test is a test which […]

AMENDED PLEADING FILED LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: THE NEED TO PLEAD THE CASE PROPERLY

In Cockell -v- Holton (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC) the defendant made a mistake in typing an e mail address so that an amended Defence and Counterclaim was served late. The application for relief from sanctions was refused.  The judgment contains some interesting observations in relation to both compliance and pleading. THE CASE The […]

JUDGES MUST “CONTEND WITH THE CHANGING FASHIONS OF APPELLATE COURTS”: ANOTHER LATE WITNESS STATEMENT; ANOTHER CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

“This is yet another appeal concerning the proper application of CPR 3.9 as to relief from sanctions.” The opening words of the judgment of Mr Justice Cranston in Fouda -v- The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [2015] EWHC 1128 (QB). He may well have added it is yet another case of […]

ADVISING CLIENTS PROPERLY AND THE ECONOMICS OF PRACTICE: WHEN DRAWINGS ARE AT £9.9 MILLION

The earlier post on Procter -v- Raley’s solicitors contained a submission on behalf of the defendant that it was necessary “in modern conditions” for solicitors to “commoditise” their advice to clients. The Court of Appeal were doubtful on that point because there was no evidence before the Court. The “economics” of the situation makes for interesting reading. […]

LETTERS OF EXPLANATION NOT GOOD ENOUGH: SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED MATTERS TO THE CLIENT: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD DECISION ON SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE

In Procter -v- Raleys Solicitors [2015] EWCA Civ 400 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision at first instance that a failure to give an oral explanation to a client was negligent.  The solicitors could not simply rely on standard form letters. THE CASE The defendant had acted for the claimant in an action under […]

INTERIM PAYMENTS; SERIOUS INJURY; ACCOMMODATION AND EELES

The very first post on this blog was a review of the law relating to interim payments in personal injury cases after Eeles. This issue was raised against in the decision of Grainger -v- Cooper [2015] EWHC 1132 (QB). THE CASE The claimant was rendered paraplegic in a motorbike accident. Liability was admitted. She had […]