The Court of Appeal in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd has ruled that, where sums have been paid to a claimant under the schedule to a Tomlin order, CPR 44.14(1) could not apply, as the schedule was not part of the court’s order but merely reflected the parties’ agreement. Continue reading
In an application made pursuant to CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke an order in Praxis Capital Ltd v Burgess, the claimant sought an order for delivery up of confidential material that it alleged was in the defendant’s possession. The defendant had been employed by the claimant company, and these materials had been obtained in the course of that employment. The application was made in respect of an earlier final order dated 2 June 2015 by which the claimant’s original claim for injunctive relief and delivery up of confidential documents was dismissed. Continue reading
What happens when an injured claimant is uncertain about the identity of the perpetrator of the wrong and is confused about who to sue? One answer is to adopt a scattergun approach: sue everyone in sight and hope that within the cohort of defendants thus joined, the actual tortfeasor(s) will be ascertained and found to be accountable. Continue reading
In Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP, the Commercial Court held that the defendant, a firm of accountants, was not liable for substantial losses suffered on unprofitable transactions which had been entered into as a consequence of advice received from the defendant, even though the losses were foreseeable and caused by the negligent advice. The negligent advice received concerned how the transactions should be accounted for. An appeal is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2019. Continue reading
Fixed costs (and how to avoid them) have been a hot topic in recent months. Earlier this year, in Bratek v Clark-Drain Ltd, the High Court found that it was not possible to contract out of the fixed costs regime attaching to the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) and Employers’ Liability/Product Liability (EL/PL) protocols by providing for standard basis costs in a consent order. This followed a pattern of evolving fixed costs jurisprudence which was sought to limit avenues to disapply fixed costs and allow a receiving party to have their costs assessed. Continue reading
The question of adequate disclosure required by a defendant to a worldwide freezing order (WFO) was discussed in the case of PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov and others. Continue reading
In three recent cases, the courts have considered how to apply the proportionality test in CPR 44.3(5) in cases where damages are not the main issue, or where no damages are in issue at all. Continue reading
The judgment in Jeddi v Sotheby’s and others determined competing claims to ownership of a £12 million early Islamic rock crystal jar, and provides guidance on agency, bailment and the immediate right to possession. Continue reading
Since their introduction in 2013, the pre-action protocols for low-value personal injury claims have been fertile ground for costs jurisprudence, particularly cases involving receiving parties’ attempts to circumvent the fixed costs regime in CPR 45. Continue reading
The recent case of Barclay v Tuck discussed the settled principles that a court has to consider when an application for committal is made. Spencer J heard the case on 14 May 2018. Continue reading