Monthly Archives: December 2015

SUPREME SANCTIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT: NO SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Thevarajah -v- Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 has been long anticipated since it related to the law relating to sanctions. In fact it is a decision in relation to a very narrow issues.  The law relating to sanctions, and CPR 3.9 in particular, was not considered. The only speech […]

Thevarajah v Riordon and Others – Supreme Court Appeal Judgment

The Supreme Court this morning handed down judgment in Thevarajah (Respondent) v Riordan and Others (Appellants) [2015] UKSC 78. The bench unanimously dismissed the appeal. A full blog post will be up later today. In the meantime the full judgment can be found here. The press summary can be found here.  

YOU DON’T HAVE TO CLAIM INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF TO BE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH

In Energysolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2015] EWCA Civ 1262 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether it is necessary for a party to litigate in order to be entitled to claim damages. The case concerns specific breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations,however some of the observations are of general importance. […]

CHILDREN AND SUCCESS FEES 3: APPEAL WITHDRAWN

Earlier posts looked at the decision of Regional Cost Judge Lumb in A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th August 2015). The second judgment on costs is now available on Bailli. These posts deal with deduction of costs from damages in children’s cases. THE APPEAL The claimant’s solicitors were given permission to […]

GOING ON A FISHING EXPEDITION? DON’T BANK ON AN ORDER FOR SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE

In Claverton Holdings Ltd -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2015] EWHC 3603 (Comm) Mr Justice Phillips was highly critical of the claimant’s application for similar fact evidence. “The application has, at this point, in my judgment, become a fishing expedition, hoping to find an admission by Barclays or a finding of similar facts where there is […]

STRIKING OUT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (OR HADRIAN’S WALL IS THERE FOR A PURPOSE YOU KNOW)

The Court of Appeal decision in Cook -v- Virgin Media Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 1287 is one that needs to be read very carefully. It is one of those cases that could lead to a whole new branch of satellite litigation. However it is a decision of relatively minor impact. It deals with issues relating […]

WAITING FOR LEGAL AID IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR DELAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

In R (Kigen) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1286 the Court of Appeal stated that delay caused by waiting for the Legal Aid Agency may no longer be accepted as a good reason for the court to exercise its discretion. “…solicitors in general may have been under the impression […]

THAT DIFFICULT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EXPERT WITNESS AND AN ADVOCATE

In AAW -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 673 (IAT) Upper Tribunal Judge Southern made some telling observations on the role of an expert. The judgment is of general interest in relation to the role of an expert. In particular the risk of an expert being perceived as taking up the […]

“TOTALLY HOPELESS” APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE;INADEQUATE WITNESS STATEMENTS;APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION REFUSED:ALL LEGAL LIFE IS HERE

The judgment of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in London Borough of Bromley -v- Heckel [2015] EWHC encompasses many of the themes regularly discussed in this blog. Proceedings were issued late;there was an inappropriate application for disclosure;the witness evidence was inadequate. Finally an application for an extension of time was  refused, thus effectively ending the action. “This […]

NO SPECIAL RULES FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: COSTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE EVENT FOLLOWING UNREASONABLE CONDUCT

Master Mathews faced an unusual scenario in Jones -v- Longley [2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch).  This case highlights the fact that litigants in person are not subject to any special rules and are liable to have orders for costs made against them. “there are not two sets of rules, one for lawyers and one for laymen. […]