Tag Archives: Conduct

COSTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND THE EXPENSIVE CONSEQUENCES OF A SIEGE BASED MENTALITY

It is surprising how often cases that have been looked at because of issues in relation to the evidence at trial are reported again on the issue of costs.  The Ocensa Pipeline Group Litigation case is such an action.  I have looked at it earlier* in relation to the evidential issues.  There is now a […]

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW X: 10 KEY POINTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

This is the last in the series of Advocacy the Judge’s view.  We have looked at advice given by judges from around the world.  Here I select a key point from each. 1. ADVICE FROM CANADA – MANNERS MATTER It is difficult to select any one point from the talk given by  Mr Justice Joseph […]

PROPORTIONATE COST ORDERS WHEN COSTS ARE £8 MILLION AND £10 MILLION APIECE: HIGH COURT DECISION

We have already looked at the decision in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496 (TCC) in relation to the question of proportionality. However the judgment contains much more of interest in relation to costs. It provides an important example of the court’s approach a proportionate costs order.  The judgment considers conduct; alleged […]

THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)

The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for the parties to co-operate on the nature and scope of expert evidence. “In my judgment […]

PART 36 OFFERS AND COSTS: COSTS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN OFFER HAS BEEN “BEATEN”

In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd -v- Providence Resources PLC [2016] EWHC 2611 (Comm) Mr Justice Popplewell considered the impact of a Part 36 offer in unusual circumstances.  These circumstances led the court to consider whether the impact of costs should be taken into account in considering whether or not a Part 36 offer has been […]

BEING A LITIGATOR – WHEN IT ALL GETS TOO MUCH (AND IT IS YOU THAT HAS TO PICK UP THE PIECES)

There have been a number of reported cases recently of young lawyers (sometimes trainees) obviously becoming overwhelmed by their workload.  This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it necessarily confined to young members of the profession. However it is always sad: for the administration of justice; for the clients; for the firms involved and […]

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 […]

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 […]

I WROTE LOTS OF UNEDIFYING, AGGRESSIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE LETTERS: LOOK WHERE IT GOT ME

One of aspects of the judgment in  McTear -v- Englehard [2016] EWCA Civ 487 that could easily be overlooked is the observations of Lord Justice Vos in relation to the nature of the  correspondence between the parties. “It would seem that if law firms are seeking to invest time, energy and costs in protracted and […]

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE LAWYER’S DUTY NOT TO MISLEAD

There are some important observations  by Mr Justice Leggatt in Al-Saadoon & Others -v- the Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin).  The case relates to witness statements and the duty of the lawyer when they know that there are conflicting witness statements from the client. (There is an argument that it also […]