Category Civil Procedure

PROVING THINGS 37: ROBIN HOOD RIDES AGAIN: AN APPROACH TO DAMAGES THAT WAS “FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT THROUGHOUT”

I have written before about the decision in relation to the the decision in the liquidation in the Robin Hood Centre.  In the judgment at first instance the Registrar held that the claim against former directors had been vastly over-stated and made no order for costs. Both sides appealed and the directors were successful on […]

TALES FROM COSTS LAW CONFERENCE III: SATELLITE NAVIGATION, MERRIX AND COSTS BUDGETING

One issue discussed at the Association of Costs Lawyers in Manchester on the 24th October  was the decision in Merrix -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC B28 (QB). The question of whether a detailed assessment is needed after a case has been costs budgeted. NOW ON APPEAL At the conference it was […]

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II: SEE WHAT THE COMMERCIAL COURTS GUIDE SAYS: BUT…

The post on legal representatives signing the disclosure statement written earlier in the week had a lot of response. My attention has been drawn to the Admiralty & Commercial Courts Guide  which suggests (in certain undefined circumstances) a legal representative may be an appropriate person to WHAT THE GUIDE SAYS At E3.8 “(a) For the […]

PART 36: OFFER DID NOT COVER COSTS OF ADJUDICATIONS

In  Wes Futures Limited -v- Allen Wilson Construction Limited [2016] EWHC 2863 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson considered the terms of an offer from the claimant that the Defendant accepted 10 months afterwards.  Curiously it was the claimant that was arguing that their own offer was not a valid Part 36 offer.  The judge held that […]

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II

We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to experts.  This aspect of the interaction between lawyers and experts is of importance both generally […]

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE: A MASTERLY EXPOSITION

The judgment of Master Matthews in Darby Properties Ltd -v- Lloyds Bank Plc [2016] 2494 (Ch) contains an important consideration of the rules relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. In particular when is expert evidence “necessary”? “… although I think there would undoubtedly be some assistance to the court in giving the court the […]

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE A BREACH OF ARTICLE 8 RIGHTS: ECHR DECISION

In Vukota-Bojic -v- Switzerland the European Court held that the surveillance of an insurance claimant represented a breach of Article 8 rights (but use of that evidence at a hearing was not a breach of Article 6 rights).  It could be a decision of considerable importance, particularly to public authorities. KEY POINTS The taking of […]