- November 5, 2020
The correct approach to applications to abandon a single joint expert: Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2)
In Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2), Spencer J dismissed an appeal against the County Court’s refusal to allow the claimant’s application to adjourn a trial and to rely on an acoustic engineering expert’s report, instead of the original single joint expert (SJE) report. Spencer J confirmed that the County Court had correctly applied the approach … Continue reading The correct approach to applications to abandon a single joint expert: Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) →
- August 18, 2020
Fighting the elements: proving the tort of malicious prosecution in CXZ v ZXC
In CXZ v ZXC, Steyn J analysed the claimant’s pleaded case, in this instance as to whether the law had been set in motion against him on a criminal charge. She then examined the four elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, and the fact that a claimant has to prove each element.
- June 22, 2020
Frejek v Frejek: remote committal applications and in-person sentencing
In Frejek v Frejek, Roth J dealt effectively with a committal application remotely by Skype and in the respondent’s absence. Roth J found the respondent to be in contempt of court but would not deal with sentencing. Instead, a bench warrant was issued for the respondent to be brought before the court specifically for sentencing.
- March 20, 2020
High Court allows appeal based on error of fact where trial judge’s evaluation of key photographic evidence resulted in plainly wrong decision
In Boas and others v Aventure International Ltd, HHJ Hodge QC, sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, allowed an appeal against a recorder’s county court judgment about the exact location of a disputed boundary, in rare circumstances where the recorder had failed to consider the full effect of specific and clear photographic evidence, … Continue reading High Court allows appeal based on error of fact where trial judge’s evaluation of key photographic evidence resulted in plainly wrong decision →
- January 10, 2020
Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd: Reflections on aspects of the Disclosure Pilot Scheme under PD 51U
In Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd and another, Marcus Smith J dismissed the claimant’s application for extended or additional disclosure but not without making comments about the mandatory Disclosure Pilot Scheme (DPS) pursuant to PD 51U operating in the Business and Property Courts until 31 December 2020.
- November 7, 2019
High Court emphasises importance of explaining clearly English rules of procedure and burden of proof
In Paralel Routs Limited v Fedotov, HHJ Paul Matthews, who was sitting as a judge of the High Court, highlighted the importance and necessity of procedural rules being explained properly. This case involved a defendant, a Russian national, who at the time of trial was in prison in Moscow and did not give live evidence, … Continue reading High Court emphasises importance of explaining clearly English rules of procedure and burden of proof →
- September 6, 2019
Court of Appeal decides parties’ consent not required for court to order early neutral evaluation
In Lomax v Lomax, the Court of Appeal had to decide the effect of CPR 3.1(2)(m), which refers to the court’s powers as including “…hearing an Early Neutral Evaluation…”. Rule 3.1 contains the court’s “general powers of management” and sets out a “list of powers” which are in addition to any other powers the court … Continue reading Court of Appeal decides parties’ consent not required for court to order early neutral evaluation →
- July 4, 2019
Informal correspondence with the court does not amount to grant of time extension
In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden and another, Marcus Smith J allowed the applicant (Saint Benedict) to vary or revoke an order striking out the applicant’s appeal for failure to file an appeal bundle, on condition that the applicant file a complete appeal bundle within seven days or make a … Continue reading Informal correspondence with the court does not amount to grant of time extension →
- May 14, 2019
Guidance regarding injunctions against persons unknown: Boyd and another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and others
In Boyd and another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and others, Longmore LJ dealt with the tricky issue of injunctions against persons unknown, who were thought to be likely to become protesters at sites selected by the respondents for the purpose of exploration for shale gas by fracking.
- March 11, 2019
The relevance of judges’ assessment of litigants’ ability to participate effectively
In Maitland-Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority, Green LJ and Carr J considered the appeal of the appellant (Alexis Maitland-Hudson) against findings of misconduct and dishonesty made against him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in May 2018.
- January 24, 2019
Beware too many experts: Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
In Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Master Thornett considered the claimant’s application for permission to rely upon additional neurosurgical evidence and for directions in consequence, including an increase to the claimant’s previously budgeted costs.
- November 7, 2018
Does a stay of proceedings apply to the service of a claim form?
In Grant v Dawn Meats, the Court of Appeal had to decide if a court imposed stay of proceedings applied to the service of the claim form, as well as procedural steps required to be taken during the stay.