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.
In Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd and others, the defendant applied for an adjournment on health grounds. This was refused. The trial went ahead in his absence. The defence was struck out. The claimant was awarded damages of over £290,000 and the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of just over £83,500. The defendant applied … Continue reading A triple appeal granted and no denial of justice or penal costs: adjourning a trial on health grounds
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 … Continue reading Cyanamid plus principles to be applied in “now or never” injunction cases
The interplay between CPR 7.5 and CPR 6.14 has been considered in a number of cases concerning valid service of a claim form, most recently in Jones v Chichester Harbour Conservancy and others.
On 27 July 2017, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched a consultation on its new three-year corporate strategy for 2017-2020, which is open until 21 September.
What’s changing? The new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims comes into force on 1 October 2017 and will apply to any debt claimed by a business (including sole traders and public bodies) from an individual (including a sole trader). It does not affect business-to-business debts (unless the debtor is a sole trader) or where the … Continue reading Does one size fit all? A commentary on the new Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims
Perhaps surprisingly, given that one would assume that service of a claim form and particulars of claim is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), the answer to this question appears to be yes.
As the proverb goes, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again”. Unfortunately, in the case of Hall and another v Elia and another, the message from the High Court is: don’t try to apply again, unless there has been a material change in circumstances since the original decision.
The trial is over, judgment has been reserved and those involved await the result with anticipation. But what can be done when the decision arrives in the form of a draft judgment and you believe the judgment is defective?
Following the hearing of an interim application in the case of UPL Europe Limited v Agchemaccess Chemicals Limited, Chief Master Marsh has given some guidance on the obligations of litigants where expert evidence is permitted. This guidance will be particularly useful where expert technical or scientific analysis is required, but it is also of more … Continue reading Early engagement between the parties on the scope of expert evidence and the methodology to be used is crucial
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the Act) operates to insert an implied term in business to business contracts for the supply of goods and services for interest on a qualifying debt, plus an additional fixed sum.
As the area of law surrounding Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPOs) has grown in recent years, applications for an NPO in situations where the respondent resides outside the jurisdiction has come under increasing scrutiny. The recent High Court case of AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC  EWHC 2082 (Comm) has provided a … Continue reading A long way from Norwich: Jurisdiction in NPOs revisited
Non-party costs orders against those who have funded defences are more unusual than orders made against those who have funded claims. The recent judgment in the case of The Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure Limited has contributed to the developing law in this area and sheds light on when an order might be made.
As we all know, the court has discretion on the question of costs. Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that “the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in … the High Court … are in the discretion of the court” and CPR 7.2(1) provides that “proceedings are started when the court … Continue reading A reminder that issuing proceedings (even if those proceedings are not served) has cost consequences
“It is a sad fact that the provisions of Part 36, intended to promote settlement of litigation, and thus to minimise costs, have themselves been productive of numerous appeals to this Court, and in consequence substantial costs in what is effectively satellite litigation.” This quote is from the beginning of Sir Stanley Burnton’s judgment in … Continue reading Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust: when is a winner not a winner?
Napoléon Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” As litigators, we generally regard it our overriding duty to obtain the best possible result for our clients by (within reason) every means available to us. However, the duty to our clients is tempered in several respects. One of the quandaries that can, … Continue reading What should you do if your opponent makes a procedural error?
In two recent cases in which judgment was given a day apart (The Gulf Agencies v Ahmed and Clydesdale Bank v John Workman) the Court of Appeal overturned the decisions of the first instance judges and severely criticised them for the manner in which they reached their decisions. In both cases, the first instance judges … Continue reading What can you do if a judge does not properly address and decide the issues?
Whenever the court makes an order of its own volition, it serves as a reminder of how wide the court’s discretion is when it comes to exercising its case management powers. We must always bear this in mind, and advise our clients that the court could independently make an order that neither party may have … Continue reading Cook v Virgin Media and McNeil v Tesco: court invokes doctrine of forum non conveniens of its own volition