REUTERS | Michaela Rehle
August 7, 2020

Arguments on the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17: Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh

REUTERS | Michaela Rehle
August 7, 2020

Arguments on the provisions and application of CPR 44.13-17: Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh

By way of background, the claim in Anne Morgan (on behalf of herself and of the estate of Mr Christopher John Morgan) v Dr Chongtham Singh related to a medical negligence matter and centres around the alleged negligent treatment of a Baker’s cyst. The claimant, Christopher Morgan, instructed Irwin Mitchell and entered into a conditional fee agreement (CFA) which provided for a success fee. However, as a result of an unrelated condition, Mr Morgan sadly passed away in December 2014. His wife, Anne Morgan, decided to pursue the claim on behalf of the estate and herself. She subsequently entered into a post-Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) CFA which, under the subsequent rules, meant that she was not entitled to a success fee. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Hyungwon Kang
August 6, 2020

“Dieselgate” before the European Court of Justice

In Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI) v Volkswagen AG, the European Court of Justice determined whether the special jurisdiction provisions of article 7(2) of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation (1215/2012) should be interpreted in a way which permitted Austrian courts to exercise jurisdiction over Volkswagen, the German-domiciled car manufacturer, in respect of claims for compensation arising out of the purchase in Austria of VW cars which had been equipped in Germany with a software “defeat device” to manipulate emissions figures, contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Mohamed Abd El Ghany
August 5, 2020

To be (full and) frank, take accusations of material non-disclosure seriously

Without notice applications carry with them a duty on the applicant to provide full and frank disclosure: that is, disclosure to the court of all objectively material facts, including those which it is anticipated would be raised by the other side if it were present (Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd). If the applicant is found substantially or deliberately to have breached their duty of full and frank disclosure, there is a rebuttable presumption that the order made without notice will be immediately discharged (National Bank Trust v Yurov and others). Given the potential negative consequences for the party, not to mention the criticism and potential sanction of their legal advisers for a breach of their personal duties to the court, giving full and frank disclosure is to be taken seriously. Indeed, much time and cost is incurred in the preparation of without notice applications by first raising, and then dispensing with, the potential arguments that the other side might raise. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Bob Strong
August 3, 2020

Group actions offer justice for all

As we all know, the advent of COVID-19 and resulting lockdown have been unprecedented. The effect on people’s health, both physical and mental, has been particularly evident. The financial consequences, equally for individuals and companies, have also been much debated and are slowly becoming clearer. While we all hope that adverse impacts will be mitigated, through government actions, regulatory intervention and corporate benevolence, it seems likely that situations will arise where things could have been done better. Sadly, some corporates will have taken advantage of the situation to trespass on consumer rights. Many individual consumers will be left feeling the pain as a result. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Maxim Shemetov
July 31, 2020

Litigation friends: duties and procedure (Part 2)

In the last two years, there have been three significant cases involving the court’s powers in relation to litigation friends outside the field of personal injury.

My previous blog post considered the first of those cases, which dealt with issues including the role and duties of litigation friends, and conflicts arising between a litigation friend and a protected party. This blog post (Part 2) examines the next two cases, which consider issues including the court’s power to appoint a litigation friend, and its power to terminate the appointment of a litigation friend.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Rodrigo Garrido
July 30, 2020

Litigation friends: duties and procedure (Part 1)

As will be seen below, the issue of litigation friends is dealt with in CPR 21, and covers children and protected parties.

By definition, children are far less likely to be involved in litigation outside the field of personal injury as they cannot enter into contracts, except for necessities, during their minority, and thus the vast majority of cases in which a litigation friend is appointed for a child is in the field of personal injury.

Continue reading →

REUTERS |
July 29, 2020

Re TPS Investments (UK) Ltd: electronic bundles guidance

In Re TPS Investments (UK) Ltd, HHJ Hodge QC, sitting as a High Court judge and considering a short and uncontested insolvency application in the Manchester Business and Property Courts Insolvency and Companies List, noted that “… there is nothing usual about the present times”. In his judgment, he offered valuable guidance of how courts and practitioners might adjust to the new requirements for electronic bundles introduced by the COVID-19 crisis. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Mohammed Salem
July 28, 2020

Reining in the rule against reflective loss: Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd

In a much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision which, if it had been allowed to stand, would have denuded the intentional economic torts of much of their practical utility.

The majority’s decision established a bright-line rule, cutting down the scope of the so-called rule against reflective loss and overruling a number of authorities which had expanded its reach significantly over the last few decades.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Hannah McKay
July 27, 2020

Damages-based agreements and termination: a small chink of light

Damages-based agreements (DBAs) have been available to fund civil litigation in England and Wales since 2013, when they were introduced as part of the Jackson reforms. But in practice, they are still a rare breed. The reluctance on the part of the legal profession to embrace DBAs is generally attributed to difficulties with their implementation, and in particular the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 which govern the regime. Continue reading →