The High Court’s recent decision in King and others v Kings Solutions Group Limited and others considered CPR 38.7 and re-examined the case law on abuse of process as set out in Henderson v Henderson. The case was heard by Tom Leech QC, sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court.
In CJ & LK Perk Partnership v Royal Bank of Scotland, the court had to consider when it was appropriate to direct a litigant in person (LIP) to file a costs budget. Background Costs budgeting was introduced into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to allow the courts to further the overriding objective of dealing with … Continue reading Costs budgeting for litigants in person: CJ and LK Perk Partnership v Royal Bank of Scotland
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)
The recent judgment in Lancaster and others v Peacock QC is an interesting decision which provided rare guidance on the procedure for choosing sample claimants in group litigation.
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.
The judgment in SC v University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is of interest due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the way it is affecting the court system, as it discusses the circumstances where a case is suitable for a remote hearing under the current guidelines. Johnson J heard the matter on 4 June … Continue reading The suitability of remote hearings: SC v University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust
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.
This blog discusses the recent judgment by Foxton J in Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and others v Su and others, highlighting difficulties for a judgment creditor in enforcing a multi-million dollar judgment against a former billionaire shipping magnate, who was willing to go to prison rather than reveal assets for enforcement. It discusses some wider … Continue reading Enforcing judgments: Lakatamia Shipping Company and others v Su and others
There have been a number of hearings in Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell in the last month. On 9 March 2020, Stuart -Smith J ordered on jurisdiction, and on 30 March he gave another ruling relating to the disclosure of the damages-based agreement entered into by the claimants on the matter. On 2 March 2020, Stuart-Smith … Continue reading Limitation issues in Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell
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
AA v Persons unknown and three others revolved around anonymity applications to the court.
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.
This was an appeal bought by Jet 2 Holidays Ltd. The appeal related to an application by the claimant for permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendant for contempt. Karl and Laura Hughes, the defendants, had intimated a claim against Jet 2 Holidays Ltd, the claimants, in relation to holiday sickness.
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
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
Brothers Enterprise Limited v New World Hospitality UK Limited, decided in 2017, raises important points for practitioners advising on applications for injunctive relief.
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
The case of Willers v Joyce and another (in substitution for and in their capacity as executors of Albert Gubay (deceased) revolved around a suite of litigation that has been ongoing since the 1990s.
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.
The case of Bostani and others v Pieper and another related to the enforcement of a Tomlin order which had been previously entered into by the parties. The court was asked to decide whether the Limitation Act 1980 applied to such agreements. Jacobs J heard the application of the claimants on 4 March 2019.
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.
The case of R (on the application of British American Tobacco (UK) Limited) v Secretary of State for Health discussed CPR 5.4C(2) and the case law surrounding this discrete area of practice.
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.
In the case of FM Capital Partners Limited v Marino and others, Peter McDonald Eggars QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court considered the application of the third respondent, Mr Yoshiki Ohmura, to vary a worldwide freezing order. His judgment considers the definition of assets in freezing orders and in particular in … Continue reading Varying worldwide freezing orders: FM Capital Partners Limited v Marino and others
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.
In BCS Corporate Acceptances Limited and others v Terry, Morris J discussed third party debt orders and whether such an order could be made over sums held in solicitors’ client accounts.
The recent case of Wards Solicitors v Hendawi has revisited the common issue of setting aside a default judgment. The matter was heard by HHJ Paul Matthews at the Bristol District Registry.
The question of adequate disclosure required by a defendant to a worldwide freezing order (WFO) was discussed in the case of PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov and others.
The recent case of Barclay v Tuck discussed the settled principles that a court has to consider when an application for committal is made. Spencer J heard the case on 14 May 2018.
In Su v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd and another, section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 was carefully considered by the Court of Appeal.
The High Court has recently ordered an injunction against an unknown third party and provided for alternative service by text message. In the case of NPV v QEL and ZED, all parties have been anonymised to protect their identities, and in particular NPV, a successful businessman.
The Supreme Court has recently given judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov.
HHJ Waksman has recently granted a freezing order against persons unknown, in the case of CMOC v Persons Unknown.
Teare J in the High Court has ordered that the claimant in a personal injury case should pay back the damages he received from insurers, plus costs and interest, in UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry.
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not expressly prohibit a second action where a first action based on many of the same facts and claim has not been successful; in fact CPR 3.4(4) seems to envisage that possibility. However, there are established cases which provide guidance on when a second claim will be held as an … Continue reading When it is appropriate to have a second bite at the cherry: Davies v Carillion Energy Services Limited and another
Legal privilege is a fundamental base of our English legal system upon which the administration of justice is built. In Ventouris v Mountain, The Italia Express (1991) 1WLR 607, Lord Justice Bingham explained the public interest in a client being: “…free to unburden themselves without reserve to their legal advisors” and their legal advisors being … Continue reading Waiver of privilege even where there is a lack of advice
The High Court has refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant from pursing unfair prejudice proceedings in Hong Kong against: Two companies that had signed contracts including exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English court. Related companies within the same group (that had not signed up to the contracts containing English exclusive jurisdiction … Continue reading When an English jurisdiction clause is not all it should be
With the drive to use technology to make litigation more efficient, it is surprising that we do not make more use of permitted technological aids, such as video link for oral witness evidence.
I am tasked specifically within our firm to deal with cash flow. An important part of that role is to ensure that we get money in as soon as possible on conclusion of a case. In recent years I have seen a shift in balance and attitudes towards payments on accounts of costs. There are … Continue reading Application for payments on account of costs
A Solicitors Act charge is a tool that solicitors can utilise to recover their costs against a client, where exercising a lien is unavailable, inappropriate or ineffective.
The recent case of Bath v Escott highlights the difference between a judge’s reasoning as evidenced in judgments and the actual decision as recorded in a court order, and the precedence of the latter.
There are numerous reasons why a witness may be unable or unwilling to assist a party in litigation, either by providing a witness statement, attending court or both. In such circumstances, careful consideration should be given to how that evidence can be adduced.
In March 2017, a new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims was published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and will come into effect on 1 October 2017. It has taken some time to finalise, with drafters seeking to balance the need for processes not to be overly burdensome on creditors against the protection of consumers.
A county court judge, Recorder Grubb, gave a judgment (Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (2017) (County Court) (unreported)) in what is thought to be the first decided claim for damages arising from the existence of Japanese Knotweed on a neighbour’s land. Although it is not a binding decision, it could open the floodgates for … Continue reading Tying yourself in a knot(weed): Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Over the past year, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain after the event (ATE) insurance for lower value multi-track work. Additionally, where ATE cover has been offered, the premiums could be as high as 40-50% of the level of indemnity sought. In some instances, lower value multi-track claims (values of £25,000 – £100,000) with … Continue reading Do ATE policies represent good value for money for clients?
Towards the end of 2016, there was an interesting judgment from Keehan J in P v A Local Authority, which related to proceedings involving a child (P), a local authority and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). In a decision that considered matters under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and CPR 21, Keehan J determined that … Continue reading Children’s legal aid funding and the LAA’s statutory charge
In a recent County Court case (Narinder Singh Birdi v Balwinder Singh Birdi), where I acted for the defendant against his brother, the claimant’s original particulars of claim were struck out due to numerous irregularities which meant that neither the defendant nor the court could identify exactly what was being claimed. The claimant filed amended … Continue reading When is a costs budget not a costs budget?