Category Damages

DELAY AND NON-COMPLIANCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT: A “GAME CHANGER”

The judgment of Master Matthew in Phelps -v- Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) emphasises the dangers of delay and non compliance. “…I will observe that the Court ethos has changed enormously since the days of Lord Denning and the two Court of Appeal decisions to which I have referred. I will not say that in […]

TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT: SCHEDULES and COUNTER-SCHEDULES: THE “CINDERELLAS” OF THE LITIGATION PROCESS

One important, but often overlooked, element of procedure and legal drafting is the preparation of the schedule of damages and the counter-schedule.  The rules relating to these documents are sparse. However these are important documents, often impacting upon the credibility of a litigant’s case (or defence). SCHEDULE TOO LONG: COUNTER-SCHEDULE TOO SPARTAN This post was […]

PROVING THINGS 45: IF YOU CAN’T PROVE LOSS THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This series (and this blog) have looked at several cases where a party  has asserted a loss but not been able to prove it. There are a large number of cases where a party fails to put the basic information before the court to show that any loss has incurred.  This can be seen in […]

PROVING THINGS 41: PROVING DAMAGES – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY

There was one part of the argument in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB) that justifies closer examination. That is the claimant’s suggestion that the question of damages be put off.  A party struggling to prove damages at trial is likely to struggle in an application to have the issue of damages heard later. THE […]

PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK

A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages.  This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB). After a six day trial the claimants […]

PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A “NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE”

It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive judgment, at [2016] EWHC 2856 (TCC) fits well within the proving things series.  It is […]

PROVING THINGS 33: CAUSATION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS AGAINST SOLICITORS

We have looked before at the decision in The Connaught Income Fund, Series 1 -v- Hewetts Solicitors  [2016] EWHC 2286 (Ch). The previous post was in connection with witness evidence.  However the judgment on the burden of proof is significant in terms of the need to prove causation and damages in the context of a professional negligence […]

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 3: A NUANCED APPROACH

We have looked several times before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after judgment has been entered*.  The recent decision of Master Matthews in Merito Financial Services Limited -v- David Yelloly [2016] EWHC  2067 (Ch) adds a more nuanced approach to these issues. KEY POINTS Where a claimant […]

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in  Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation.   In addition to criticism of the parties conduct it  deals with important issues in relation to (i) filing […]

THE ARROYO CASE WAS A BIG & COMPLEX ACTION: THE PROBLEMS WERE SIMPLE (AND COMMON) 1: UNCHECKED SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES

The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC is 1885 paragraphs long.  The trial lasted from the 15th October 2014 to the 5th March 2015, that is 62 court days.  The judgment actually contains a “health warning” to lawyers tempted to read it.  However it illustrates some basic, […]