REUTERS | Hannah McKay

We are five months into the compulsory electronic bill of costs and so far all is quiet. Obviously it will take time before cases affected by the change hit the courts, but research undertaken by the Association of Costs Lawyers has shown that many solicitors and judges were not ready for the new bill when it became compulsory in April, and few are keen on it now. Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Blake

The European Commission (Commission) has proposed a series of measures to improve the EU Service Regulation (the Regulation) and bring it into the digital age. At first glance, the Commission’s proposals look straightforward and sensible. Communications and the transmission of documents between authorities should, of course, be made electronically, as is proposed. Likewise, it should be possible, after the commencement of legal proceedings, for the addressee to consent to being served by email, as is also proposed. Continue reading

REUTERS | Phil Noble

In an application made pursuant to CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke an order in Praxis Capital Ltd v Burgess, the claimant sought an order for delivery up of confidential material that it alleged was in the defendant’s possession. The defendant had been employed by the claimant company, and these materials had been obtained in the course of that employment. The application was made in respect of an earlier final order dated 2 June 2015 by which the claimant’s original claim for injunctive relief and delivery up of confidential documents was dismissed. Continue reading

REUTERS | Thomas Mukoya

What happens when an injured claimant is uncertain about the identity of the perpetrator of the wrong and is confused about who to sue? One answer is to adopt a scattergun approach: sue everyone in sight and hope that within the cohort of defendants thus joined, the actual tortfeasor(s) will be ascertained and found to be accountable. Continue reading

REUTERS | Jason Redmond

In Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP, the Commercial Court held that the defendant, a firm of accountants, was not liable for substantial losses suffered on unprofitable transactions which had been entered into as a consequence of advice received from the defendant, even though the losses were foreseeable and caused by the negligent advice. The negligent advice received concerned how the transactions should be accounted for. An appeal is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2019. Continue reading