Monthly Archives: April 2016

COSTS: NOT EVERY DEFENDANT NEEDED REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL

There are some important observations about costs made by Mrs Justice Carr DBE in RSPCA -v- McCormick & others [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin). THE CASE The RSPCA brought an appeal by way of case stated as to the meaning of “animal fighting” within s.8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That appeal was unsuccessful, however […]

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS REFUSAL TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AFTER DEFENDANT FAILED TO ATTEND TRIAL

Given the many strictures relating to the sanctity of the trial date the decision of the Court of Appeal in TBO Investments Ltd -v- Mohun-Smith [2016]  EWCA Civ 403 may be viewed as a surprising one. The defendant failed to attend trial and an adjournment was refused,  bu tthe defendant  was then successful in setting […]

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE

In Elliston -v- Glencore Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407 the Court of Appeal took the unusual step of overturning findings of fact by the trial judge. (It is perhaps important that I emphasise how rare this is. There have been plenty of cases recently where the Court of Appeal has, robustly, upheld findings […]

UNCERTAINTY AS TO DAMAGES: JUST HOLD ONTO THE MONEY UNTIL FULL TIME

In Gibbs -v- Leeds United Football Club Ltd [2016] EWHC 960 (QB) Mr Justice Langstaff made an order that dealt with the question of uncertainty in relation to the assessment of damages. Rather than speculate on sums to be paid which would reduce the damages award the judge ordered that a sum be paid into […]

HILLSBOROUGH AND WITNESS STATEMENTS 1: THE INITIAL PROCESS AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS

Hopefully we will never have another Hillsborough.   It is possible (even probable) that there will be circumstances in which lawyers are involved in the large scale collection of evidence.  The recent inquest has put the evidence gathering that took place after Hillsborough under close scrutiny.   The solicitor responsible for gathering (and suggesting amendments) […]

WHAT IS MEANT BY A “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT”? AMENDING THE COSTS BUDGET WHEN CLAIM DOUBLES IN SIZE: CLAIMANT GETS THE BOOT

I am grateful to barrister Colm Nugent for his notes of the decision of Mr Justice Picken in Churchill -v- Boot (22/04/2016) in relation to costs budgeting (a summary of this case is also available on Lawtel). KEY POINTS A costs budget in a personal injury claim had been approved in 2014. The claim had […]

PROVING THINGS 16: IF YOU DON’T PROVE IT YOU DON’T GET IT

In Undre & Down to Earth (London) Limited -v- the London Barrow of Harrow [2016] EWHC 931 a claimant failed, totally, to prove any loss.   The judge found that there was a total failure by the claimant to prove any loss incurred and that any losses were caused by the defendant.  Although this related […]