Readers will know that there is presently before Parliament the very important Investigatory Powers Bill, which is generating a lot of heat and discussion. It is a very important Bill, as it will provide a long overdue opportunity to address the inadequacies of the excruciatingly drafted Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and thereby, we hope, provide a clear legislative basis for intrusive investigations into the activities of individuals and others in this country. Continue reading
The judgment of Arnold J in Solland v Clifford Harris highlights that unilaterally “warehousing” a claim (that is, putting a claim on hold without intending to pursue it) can amount to an abuse of process, even if a claimant subsequently decides to pursue the claim. Continue reading
It is a truth universally acknowledged that litigation in which costs are significant must be in need of a carefully considered Part 36 offer. Nothing more need be said about the general importance of Part 36. However, together with all of its strategic utility, Part 36 comes bundled with a host of technicalities which are not always easily navigated. Even if all those technicalities are complied with, mistakes can be made at a more fundamental level: the basic terms of the offer. What, then, can a litigator do if such a mistake is made? There is real debate about the interaction between the technical aspects of Part 36 and the inherent injustice such a situation can create, and that is the focus of this blog. Continue reading