Monthly Archives: March 2016

APPLICATIONS ARE EXPENSIVE: NINE POINTS FROM AUSTRALIA TO REDUCE COSTS

Given the recent increase in court fees  in relation to applications it is prudent for everyone involved to look for a means to avoid the need for applications, or reduce their client’s exposure to costs.  Similar problems are faced throughout the world, it seems. It is worthwhile looking at a case highlighted by the Australian […]

A GENTLE REMINDER OF YOUR NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION 5: LEARN HOW TO DRAFT A WITNESS STATEMENT

As part of the series giving gentle reminders of the “litigator’s resolutions” set out at the beginning of the year I am returning to the very basic art of drafting a witness statement.  It may be significant that the post from two years ago Drafting witness statements that comply with the rules: a checklist too […]

LITIGATION AND WORKLOAD 3: INSURERS

The first post in this series on litigators and workload got an (unexpected) amount of attention.  As part of the series I want to look at one often overlooked, but crucial, part of the litigation chain, insurers. In particular claims handlers.  Judging by the evidence from recent cases it appears that they are not only […]

BOOK REVIEW: THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND E-DISCLOSURE HANDBOOK: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION IN BYTE SIZED CHUNKS

Peter Hibbert has written an impressive work, The Electronic Evidence and E-Disclosure Handbook.    Does it deserve a place on your bookshelf?  I have a quick review and a longer review.  They both lead to the same conclusion.   THE SHORT REVIEW Do I need this? Yes. Can I do without it? No. Does it contain […]

SECTION 33: CERTAIN FALLACIES DISPLACED

Each application under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980 is, of course, unique. It is interesting, however to examine the decision of Her Honour Judge Walden Smith (sitting as a High Court judge) in Sanderson -v- City of Bradford City Council [2016] EWHC 527 (QB). Not least it eliminates one, still widely peddled, fallacy about […]

COSTS OF IN-HOUSE SOLICITORS: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH

In Sidewalk Properties Ltd -v- Twinn [2015] UKUT 0122 (LC) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered the issue of the appropriate rates to be charged by an in-house solicitor and the appropriate basis for an inter-partes award. KEY POINTS The services of an in-house lawyer should normally be calculated by reference to the hourly rates […]

WHAT A DAY FOR CLAIM FORM CASES: DECISION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

No sooner was the (metaphorical) ink dry on the post on the Abbott -v- Econwall case   when the Court of Appeal decision in Barton -v- Wright Hassall [2016] EWCA Civ 177. In the case the judge allowed an application under CPR 16, in the Barton case the Court upheld a decision not to grant […]