- June 1, 2017
Penalty clauses: primariness, secondariness and the categorisation of obligations in a penalties case
For lawyers, as for football referees, it can be tricky to work out what is and is not a penalty. The Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis litigation was welcomed widely as providing clarity in determining what will amount to an unenforceable penalty clause and what will not (for … Continue reading Penalty clauses: primariness, secondariness and the categorisation of obligations in a penalties case →
- March 14, 2017
Remarkably unremarkable: the appeal in Workman v Forrester
The appeal in Workman v Forrester and others is both remarkable and unremarkable.
- January 12, 2017
Wise Indians, unwise advice and the perils of lengthy litigation: Court of Appeal considers remoteness of damage following failure to advise on jurisdiction clause
Time and tide wait for no man; they certainly don’t wait for litigants. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wright v Lewis Silkin LLP reminds us of the truth in that aphorism: Mr Wright learned the inherent value in litigation proceeding timeously, a lesson quite literally knocked home for him by “the wise Indian” who … Continue reading Wise Indians, unwise advice and the perils of lengthy litigation: Court of Appeal considers remoteness of damage following failure to advise on jurisdiction clause →
- November 22, 2016
The taxonomy of evidence: experts, facts, opinions and the courts
In Darby Properties Limited and another v Lloyds Bank plc, Master Matthews has given judgment in a case concerning the admissibility of expert evidence in an interest rates hedging products case.
- September 8, 2016
Truth, the whole truth and a little sweetener for telling it: contingent payments to witnesses and other litigation impropriety
A statement of case can be struck out where it is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings (CPR 3.4(2)(b)). The TCC (Mr Justice Fraser) has, in the recent decision EnergySolutions EU Limited v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, underlined just how bad a party’s behaviour … Continue reading Truth, the whole truth and a little sweetener for telling it: contingent payments to witnesses and other litigation impropriety →
- July 14, 2016
Bringing the Bar to the pub: “pop-up justice” for the 21st century?
On 30 June 2016, The Times reported on a speech given by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, to a conference organised by Solicitors for the Elderly. It touched on the possibility of holding court hearings in public places other than court buildings. On the same day, The Daily … Continue reading Bringing the Bar to the pub: “pop-up justice” for the 21st century? →
- March 8, 2016
Who will the court believe? Lessons on witness credibility from recent cases
It’s the ultimate get-out for the lazy legal advisor: “I can’t tell you how it’s going to go, it will all come down to the evidence on the day and who the court believes.” The trouble is that it is so often true. Strong cases unravel after mere minutes of cross-examination, especially where it is … Continue reading Who will the court believe? Lessons on witness credibility from recent cases →
- November 19, 2015
Indirect instruction: a flight of fancy?
What happened? In Bao Xiang International Garment Centre and others v British Airways Plc, the claimants’/respondents’ solicitors (the firm) had issued a claim form in the name of 64,697 claimants. The allegation was that BA and five other airlines had fixed prices as part of a cartel in 1999 and 2007 and were liable for … Continue reading Indirect instruction: a flight of fancy? →
- September 10, 2015
Adducing expert evidence: appeal in British Airways v Spencer
In British Airways v Spencer and others (present trustees of the BA pension scheme), Warren J has allowed, in part, an appeal against a deputy master’s refusal to grant permission to adduce expert evidence because it was unnecessary.
- July 9, 2015
Samara sixteen months on: applications for relief from sanction and to set aside default judgment
Up until March last year, the case law applying the new relief from sanctions regime in the context of applications to set aside default judgment was not always consistent or predictable. Samara v MBI & Partners UK Ltd brought welcome clarity to the question of whether CPR 3.9 applies to applications under CPR 13.3. Silber … Continue reading Samara sixteen months on: applications for relief from sanction and to set aside default judgment →