REUTERS | David W Cerny

When claimants bring a public-spirited judicial review, should they be exposed to open-ended adverse costs exposure? That was the question at stake in the recent High Court decision in Stephen Hawking and others v Secretary Of State for Health & Social Care and National Health Service Commissioning Board. Continue reading

REUTERS | Issei Kato

In Davies v HIS Energy, Morris J considered whether in a case where the first action had been struck out, a second action would be an abuse of process. The comprehensive guidance provided is welcome as this question had gone unanswered by the higher courts since the Jackson reforms introduced the more stringent relief from sanctions test. Continue reading

REUTERS | Parwiz

CPR 36.2(3) provides that a Part 36 offer may be made in respect of the whole, or part of, or any issue that arises in, a claim. This is reflected in CPR 36.5(1)(d) which, in relation to the form and content of a Part 36 offer, requires the offeror to state whether it relates to the whole of the claim or to part of it, or to an issue that arises in it and, if so, to which part or issue. Continue reading

REUTERS | Danish Siddiqui

Practitioners will be well aware of the American Cyanamid guidelines, which are routinely applied by the courts in injunction cases. The guidelines are not a statutory test to be rigorously applied but practitioners will be aware of their importance and will seek to ensure that their evidence and arguments cover the key points, namely: whether there is a serious question to be tried and if so, the “balance of convenience” test. Continue reading