Tag Archives: Civil Procedure

FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: AND THERE’S A BRIGHTSIDE

Every year brings a batch of cases relating to service of the claim form. This year starts with an unusual issue. In Brightside Group Ltd -v- RSM UK Audit LLP [2017] EWHC 6 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker considered  issues relating to service of the claim form and the provisions of CPR 7.7. CPR 7.7 […]

INSURANCE, FUNDING AND LITIGATION: INSURERS HAD TO PAY SOLICITORS

There is an interesting judgment by Stuart Brown QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16). The judgment is available here nesbitjudgment A judgment on a supplementary issue is available here nesbitprelim The Note in relation to permission to appeal is […]

CIVIL CASE OF THE YEAR 2016: THE CASE THAT ENCAPSULATES CIVIL EVIDENCE: HOW THE COURT DECIDES

There were many important cases on procedure and costs in 2016.  Choosing a case of importance to litigators was not an easy task.  However I kept coming back to  the judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160 (Ch). Chosen, primarily, because it encapsulates civil evidence and the trial process in four paragraphs […]

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 […]

CLAIMANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM: A MARATHON EFFORT BUT TO NO AVAIL

In Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt rejected an argument that the claimant’s  acceptance of a Part 36 offer meant that a defendant was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim. KEY POINTS The claimantsaccepted an offer of £1,500.000 made by defendants. The defendants were bringing a counterclaim. The […]

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 […]

LITIGANTS IN PERSON AND CASE MANAGEMENT: TIMELY SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS – DRAWING FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION

Recent cases have made it clear that litigants in person do not have any special status during the conduct of litigation. However it is equally clear that, when making case management decisions, the court has to have regard to the fact that a party is unrepresented.  Here we look at the rules relating to case […]