Monthly Archives: July 2015

THE PRIMACY OF ORAL TESTIMONY: ABSENT WITNESSES ORDERED TO ATTEND AND LATE AMENDMENTS REFUSED: ALL IN ONE CASE

There is an interesting report of two separate decisions of Mr Justice Peter Smith in Harb -v- HRH Price Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2015] EWHC 2195 (Ch). This relates to two decisions made on the first day of a trial. The first relates to absent witnesses; the second to late amendments. “the […]

IF YOU ENTER INTO A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CLIENT ARE YOU PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE?

The judgment of Master Campbell in Addleshaw Goddard LLP  -v- Wood & Hellard [2015] EWHC B12 (Costs) has some interesting observations on contentious business agreements and the nature of litigation financing generally. THE CASE The claimant solicitors had entered into a Contentious Business Agreement with Mr Berezovsky in October 2010. Mr Berzovsky died in March […]

THE CENTRAL BANK OF ECUADOR CASE REVISITED: THE OCEAN FROST APPROACH

I have already posted an article on the Privy Council decision in Central Bank of Ecuador -v- Conticort CA [2015] UKPC 11. It was a remarkable case in that the Privy Council overturned findings of fact of the trial judge. In essence replacing findings of honesty with findings of dishonesty. Here I want to look at […]

NEW RULES RELATING TO “NEUTRAL EVALUATION” ; LITIGANTS IN PERSON; ASSESSMENT; SPECIALIST FINANCIAL LIST (AND MORE…)

New rules have been introduced which (for the most part) come into force on the 1st October 2015.  Here we look at the key changes. THE RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2014 were laid before Parliament on the 24th July 2015. The link to the Regulations is here. The explanatory memorandum is available […]

THIS “PROBLEM” WITH WITNESSES: IT IS NOT A ONE WAY STREET: DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE NOT BELIEVED

Much attention is, rightly, paid to the actions of evidence of claimants who bring fraudulent claims or give untrue evidence. However it is important to remember that this issue with evidence is not a one way street.  There are plenty of examples of witnesses being called by defendants who, it transpires, are not wholly accurate. […]

ADVISING ON THE “RISKS OF LITIGATION”: A HIGH COURT DECISION

In Thomas -v- Albutt [2015] EWHC Mr Justice Morgan considered, among other things, the duty owed by a barrister (and lawyers generally) to warn about the risks of litigation. “Clients, I know, want two inconsistent things. They want confident advice on which they can act, and they want cautionary advice about the risks of doing […]

POST MITCHELL PRE-DENTON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPEAL: MITCHELL PRINCIPLES WERE NOT HERE TO STAY

The appeal in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd -v- Sinclair [2015] EWCA Civ 774 involves the Court of Appeal considering the Mitchell/Denton divide. KEY POINTS The Court overturned a decision, made post-Mitchell but prior to Denton, where a judge refused to lift a stay. A stay is different to an order striking out an action. […]