This time of enforced home working presents various difficulties to those working on contentious matters. How do you conduct remote hearings effectively? How do you interview witnesses effectively? But a timely case reminds all litigation practitioners to take control of the disclosure process and, in particular, not to allow their clients to select the documents … Continue reading A timely reminder for clients not to “self-select” disclosable documents
Nestled in amongst the recent updates to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is a significant update to the rules regarding default judgments, specifically the conditions to be satisfied before obtaining such judgment.
In Ramilos Ltd v Buyanovsky, it was held that the statutory regime of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) limits the courts’ otherwise inherent jurisdiction to make a Norwich Pharmacal order when it comes to obtaining evidence in aid of foreign proceedings. This restriction, however, is one that in our … Continue reading To disclose or not to disclose: the Ramilos restriction on the courts’ Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in aid of foreign bank proceedings
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, where the defendant is an individual, the claim form is served personally by “leaving it with that individual”. But what does that mean, particularly in circumstances where the individual refuses to accept the claim form? The recent case of Gorbachev v Guriev provides a useful case study, in which it … Continue reading Up, close and personal? Guidance on what constitutes personal service on an individual
From 1 October 2019, significant changes to CPR 53 will come into force, establishing the Queen’s Bench Division’s (QBD) Media and Communications List (M&C list), a specialist list of the High Court to deal with claims arising in the area of media and communications. The M&C list was created in May 2017 but had not … Continue reading Changes to the CPR for media and communications claims
In Alba Exotic Fruit Sh Pk v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., the Circuit Commercial Court imposed security for costs as a sanction for a claimant that failed to take any substantive steps in pursuing its case for over four years, instead of ordering that the claim be struck out.
The extent to which a non-party may obtain access to documents on the court file, and what those documents comprise, has been the subject of recent judicial scrutiny, notably the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring. In The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators v B and others, the High Court was … Continue reading Access all areas? When the “interests of justice” may permit a non-party access to arbitration documents
In Asturion Foundation v Alibrahim the court saved a claimant that allegedly warehoused its claim for over nine months from having its claim struck out. This post considers that decision as well as when delay may amount to an abuse of process; why there wasn’t a delay amounting to abuse in Asturion; and what a … Continue reading From warehouse to courthouse: when delay may amount to abuse of process
In Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis (Free Goddess), the parties agreed a litigation moratorium following the filing by the defendant of an acknowledgment of service indicating that he intended to contest jurisdiction. At the time of entering the moratorium, the defendant had one day left in which to bring his challenge.