Tag Archives: Damages

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]