Monthly Archives: March 2016

“INAPPROPRIATE TECHNICAL GAMES”: ANOTHER CASE ABOUT SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT SNAPPED INTO SHAPE

The judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Abbott -v-Econowall Ltd [2016] EWHC 660 (IPEC) contains some important observations about the conduct expected in litigation. Also some important lessons in relation to agreeing extensions of time for service. “…parties to litigation are plainly not obliged to inform the opposing side of its mistakes – in […]

APPEAL COSTS ARE PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY: HIGH COURT DECISION

In Khaira -v- Shergill [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch) Richard Spearman QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge) held that costs ordered by the Supreme Court were payable forthwith and an assessment should not be stayed until the end of the case. KEY POINTS Where an appeal court orders a party to pay the costs of the […]

THE PROTOCOLS: OFFERS AND RAISING NEW POINTS AT THE HEARING

The 4 New Square website has a copy of an interesting judgment of His Honour Judge Freedman in Mulholland -v- Hughes (18th September 2015). “I regard it as inequitable and unfair for a defendant, for the first time, to raise the issue of need at the Stage 3 hearing. It seems to me that it […]

LITIGATORS, LITIGATION AND THE APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD 2: “IT’S NUTS”

I had no idea that the earlier post on a litigator’s case load would receive such a large response and have many hundreds of people reading it within hours (it was posted on a Sunday remember). Most of the response came on twitter.  One response was (somewhat wryly) that there was a mis-assumption that lawyers […]

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE COSTS (AND A LOT OF TROUBLE): COURT OF APPEAL CASE CONSIDERED

The Court of Appeal judgment today  in Patience -v- Tanner [2016] EWCA Civ 158 is a classic example of the difficulties that arise when a case is, in essence, all about the costs. It shows the danger of making, and then withdrawing an offer. Litigation went on for a long time after the offer was […]

NEW COURT FEES (INCREASED NEEDLESS TO SAY)

Court fees increased yesterday. There has been much public discussion of the family fees. Very little about the increase in fees for applications. LINKS TO THE RULES The statutory instrument is available here The facile “Impact Assessment” is available here. KEY CHANGES Amendments to the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 2. In the table in […]

IS THIS AN EXPERT REPORT I SEE BEFORE ME? I THINK NOT

In Al Nehayan -v- Kent [2016] EWHC 623 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies made observations upon “expert” evidence that had been placed before the court.  There were major failures of form as well as of substance.  The judgment contains an important reminder that expert reports must comply with the requirements of PD 35. “Within no […]