Category Civil Procedure

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY

This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year.  As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS FROM LAST YEAR Proportionality will remain a big (and largely unresolved) issue. The meaning of […]

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE, AMENDMENT & STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER DECISION

There have been a number of cases in relation to the consequences for a claimant when the correct court fee has not been paid upon issue.  This issue was considered by His Honour Judge Robinson this week in an appeal in the case of Wiseman -v- Marston’s PLC (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2016). (This […]

BOMBARDING THE COURT: AN IMPORTANT POSTSCRIPT

There is an important postscript to the judgment of Lady Justice King in Agarwala -v- Agarwala [2016] EWCA Civ 1252. It sets out the dangers of “bombarding” the court with communications and applications.   It sets out a course of action that may allow courts, in extreme cases, to cease to respond to communications from […]

INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog.  Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial to give evidence.  It also provides an important example of the court considering and applying […]

THE DEAD CAN’T SUE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

In Kimathi & Ors -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart reviewed the principles in relation to bringing an action on behalf of a deceased party.  It is an important reminder of some very basic principles. An action is brought by the deceased’s estate not in the name of the […]

PROVING THINGS 38: PROVING INABILITY TO PAY ON A SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATION

A party opposing an application for security costs sometimes has to argue that the ordering of security would “stifle” a genuine claim.  This means giving evidence as to that party’s inability to pay.  This test was considered by Mr Richard Salter QC in Eminent Energy Limited -v- KRassik Ou [2016] EWHC 2585 (Comm). It is […]

WITNESS STATEMENT OF OPINION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AND WAS NOT ADMITTED

There is a telling passage in the judgment of Richard Salter QC in St Vincent European General Partner Ltd -v- Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm). A statement of bare opinion, with nothing to support it, was not admitted in evidence. “In my judgment, Mr Phillippou’s opinions on those issues are neither properly admissible as expert […]