Monthly Archives: August 2016

FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS AND THE NEED FOR SELF-PROTECTION BY LAWYERS

A report in Litigation Futures last week illustrates the need for “self protection” by lawyers. The headline says it all “Insurance Fraudster who tried to blame his solicitor jailed for 18 months”. “IT WAS ALL MY SOLICITOR’S FAULT” The claimant was jailed for eight months for contempt of court. He, in turn,  sought to blame his […]

OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION: PAY TENS OF MILLIONS IN COMPENSATION: ANOTHER WARNING LESSON

This blog has looked several times at the dangers of obtaining injunctions. A particular danger is the undertaking in damages that has to be given when obtaining an injunction to freeze assets.  The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation -v- Yuri Privalov & others [2016] EWHC 2163 illustrates this point. […]

NON-SOLICITOR LITIGATION ENTITIES AND WASTED COSTS: WANT TO BE £102,000 OUT OF POCKET?

An earlier post looked at the issues relating to litigation being conducted by an non-authorised entity.  In M A Lloyd & Son Ltd -v- PPC International Limited [2016] EWHC 2162 (QB) issues of wasted costs arose in relation to a non-authorised body conducting litigation. KEY POINTS A solicitor employed by an entity that was not […]

STATING THAT YOU ARE NOT WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE

There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of Master Matthews in Coral Reef Limited -v- Silverbond Enterprise Limited [2016] EWHC 874 Ch. For the discussion of whether a Master is bound by the decision of a High Court judge (they are not); for the consideration of whether a court can draw adverse inferences […]

A BLUEPRINT FOR TROUBLE? A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR ANYONE CONSIDERING “ALTERNATIVES” TO SOLICITORS IN LITIGATION

The judgment of Master Matthews in Lyons -v-Kerr-Robinson [2016] EWHC 2137 (Ch) contains a cautionary tale for anyone proposing to use an alternative to solicitors to conduct their litigation.  The defendant in this case used licensed conveyancers. Their charges were “extraordinary”; the conveyancers ceased practising leaving no-one with any practical means of redress. “On any […]

THE COURT OF APPEAL THRESHOLD: LOOKING AT CASES WHERE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS REFUSED

The Law Society Gazette today reported that the threshold for appealing to the Court of Appeal is not to change.  There is, however, a removal of the automatic right to an oral hearing when seeking permission from the court. Coincidentally Bailli today has a number of reports of oral hearings where permission to appeal was […]

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE CFA ASSIGNMENT BATTLE: CFA CAN BE ASSIGNED

In Azim -v- Tradwise Insurance Services Limited [2016] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master Leonard found that a conditional fee agreement could properly be assigned. KEY POINTS An assignment of a CFA between solicitors was valid. The validity of an assignment did not depend on there being an ongoing relationship of trust between the client and the […]

AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)

In the Matter of F (a Minor)  EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case.  The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is of an expert who is overreaching his material, in the sense that whilst much of […]

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE: ACTION STAYED: SANITY IS BREAKING OUT

There are several interesting issues arising out of the judgment of Master Clark in Lifestyles Equities C.V. -v- Sportsdirect.Com Retail Limited [2016] EWHC 2092.   In particular the fact that the decision in Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch) did not feature at all. Rather than applications to strike out for abuse […]

COSTS BUDGETING IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN A HIGH VALUE CASE : BUT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL

In Signia Wealth Limited -v- Marlborough Trust Company Limited [2016] EWHC 2141 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered two issues relating to case management: whether costs budgeting should apply and whether a split trial was appropriate. KEY POINTS Costs budgeting A high value action stayed within the costs budgeting regime because the claim form limited the […]