Monthly Archives: May 2015

AMENDING PLEADINGS: WELL I’M JUST GOING TO ISSUE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS – IS THAT RELEVANT?

The earlier post looked at the general principles in relation to late amendment of pleadings. There was one further point considered in CIP Properties -v- Galliford Try [2015] EWHC 135 (TCC). The claimant argued that the amendments should be allowed because otherwise it would just issue separate proceedings. This argument was to no avail. THE […]

AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”?

We have looked at the case of CIP Properties -v- Galliford Try  twice before in the context of costs budgeting. The case came before Mr Justice Coulson again [2015] EWHC 1345 (TCC)  on the topic of amendment of pleadings.  It is unlikely that there will be a clearer exposition of the rules relating to amendments and […]

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST RESPONDENT IN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: WHAT A WASTE?

There is a brief report on Lawtel* of the decision of Popplewell J in Viridor Waste Management Ltd -v- Veolia Es Ltd (QBD (Comm) 22/05/2015. THE CASE The claimant was bringing an action for £27 million unjust enrichment. The claim form was served towards the end of the four month period. An extension of time […]

LATE APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: STOPPED AT THE DOCK

The judgment of His Honour Judge Stephen Davies in  (sitting as a judge of the High Court)  in William Clark Partnership Limited -v- Dock St PCT Limited [2015] EWHC B5 (TCC) illustrates the problems caused when applications are made late. The judge refused a late application for further disclosure and to adduce expert evidence. KEY […]

“TOUCH SENSITIVE” WITNESS STATEMENTS AND OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE: WHEN THE CLAIMANTS COLLECT THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES

The decision of Recorder Amanda Michaels (sitting as a Deputy Enterprise Judge) in Minder Music Ltd -v- Sharples [2015] EWHC 1454 (IPEC) raises some interesting issues in relation to witness statements and evidence. In particular the problems when a party to the action is responsible for taking the witness statements. THE CASE The action concerned […]

HELL IT WAS IN “THAT FEBRILE TIME”: OSTRICHES, MITCHELL, DENTON AND THE “BRILLIANT READJUSTMENT”

There are some interesting observations made by Lord Dyson MR in The English Experience of Access to Justice Reform. In particular the look back at the “febrile” atmosphere that Mitchell created and the rationale of the subsequent “revision” in Denton. THE SPEECH “18. A need for flexibility in relation to the implementation of the Jackson […]

INCREASED INTEREST AND COSTS AFTER CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN PART 36 OFFER: JUDGMENT FOR THREE TIMES MORE THAN CLAIMANT’S OFFER

In Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd -v- KI Holdings Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 1476 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggat made slight modifications to the additional amounts to be awarded to a claimant which had beaten its own part 36 offer.  It is one of those cases where the sums involved are so high that the […]