Non-party disclosure, and specifically the confidentiality concerns faced by non-party respondents, has been considered recently in the case of Bugsby Property LLC v LGIM Commercial Leasing Ltd and another. In that case, the parties to proceedings made applications for disclosure against five non-party respondents. The applications were made under CPR 31.17 and section 34 of … Continue reading Non-party disclosure and confidentiality clubs: Bugsby Property LLC v LGIM Commercial Leasing Ltd and another
In respect of interlocutory applications, the position is normally that costs fall to be reserved and decided at the conclusion of the litigation, unless there is some special feature. The case of Sportcal Global Communication Limited and another v Laflin certainly had special features.
The new CPR 81 (new rules) came into force on 1 October 2020, replacing the former CPR 81 (old rules). It provided a welcome update to the procedure for civil committal proceedings, significantly streamlining the rules from 38 to ten, and disposing of the clunky Practice Direction 81 entirely. It is intended that the overhaul … Continue reading Out with the old, in with the new: the implications on civil contempt proceedings against “persons unknown” following CPR 81’s overhaul
It is a familiar tale: a dispute arises; claimant issues claim; claimant serves claim. But what do you do if the identity and address of an individual defendant is unknown? In the recent judgment of Ivanchev v Velli, the High Court revisited this all too common chink in a claimant’s armour: effecting proper service of … Continue reading Avoiding the procedural pitfalls of defective service on individuals: Ivanchev v Velli
The admissibility of passages in a position statement for mediation and the application of the established exceptions to the without prejudice (WP) rule were considered in the High Court decision in Berkeley Square Holdings and others v Lancer Property Asset Management Ltd and others.
Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and others v Persons unknown and others has useful practical implications for those considering the terms of prospective injunction proceedings, particularly where the injunction is to prevent behaviour by persons unknown. In that case, the proposed injunction was challenged because its terms were unclear.
Delegation could still be the name of the game for litigants in person who instruct a third party to effect service of a claim form. The recent Court of Appeal judgment of Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd goes very little way in providing clarity for parties with litigants in person on … Continue reading The name of the game: effecting valid service in Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd
In Tuson v Murphy, the Court of Appeal ruled the defendant would have to bear the claimant’s costs up to the end of the relevant period even in circumstances where the claimant had been dishonest and misled the court.
In Barton v Wright Hassall LLP, the court underlined that there is a very high bar to excuse claimants (even litigants in person) from the strict rules for service set out in CPR 6. The certainty of the decision will come as a relief to many practitioners.
In Crowden v QBE, Crowden sought an indemnity under a professional indemnity policy issued by QBE. QBE successfully defended the claim based on an exclusion under the policy. This case serves as a useful reminder for insurers, brokers and policyholders of the importance of understanding the scope of insurance cover and the impact of exclusions … Continue reading Insolvency exclusions in professional indemnity insurance policies: Crowden v QBE
Following the judgment of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in BAE Systems Pensions Funds v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance plc and others in July, it appears that a potential dispute as to coverage is not a blocker to an insurer being joined into proceedings under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. … Continue reading Disputing rights against insurers
At the start of July, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) announced plans to change its indemnity insurance rules to make it easier for firms to switch their regulator for the purposes of professional indemnity insurance. The aim of this change, which follows a period of consultation, is to improve competition in the market, whilst ensuring … Continue reading Run-off cover: practical implications of SRA’s planned changes to indemnity insurance rules
Gladwin v Bogescu is a low value road traffic accident claim. It recently became a case of interest when the High Court allowed the defendant’s appeal against the decision of the lower court to grant relief from sanctions for late service of witness evidence.
The Law Society believes the legal sector of England and Wales underpins the UK economy. At the time of writing, a period of political uncertainty, together with Brexit negotiations becoming the priority of government, seem likely to scupper the Law Society’s vision for law and justice becoming a reality during the life of this Parliament.
Fraud is estimated to cost the insurance industry over £1.5 billion a year. The fraud itself can range from the exaggeration of a genuine claim, the falsifying of all or part of a claim or the deliberate falsification or omission of information in order to obtain less expensive cover. The insurance industry invests heavily in … Continue reading Can artificial intelligence (AI) prevent insurance fraud?
The High Court’s recent decision in the recent case of Ackerman v Thornhill and others is noteworthy in the context of disclosure and settlement litigation.
The decision in Astex Therapeutics Ltd v AstraZeneca is notable in the context of disclosure and on how legal and litigation privilege are interpreted.