Fixed costs only where pre-action protocol not followed – Zenith PI
‘An unreasonable failure to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury.’
Zenith PI, 1st May 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
Category: civil procedure rules
Court of Appeal finds way to apply fixed costs to EL case wrongly run outside portal – Litigation Futures
‘A claimant who wrongly began and settled their claim for noise-induced hearing loss outside of the EL/PL protocol should be limited to fixed costs under the provisions that penalise poor conduct in costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd April 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Speech by Lord Justice Irwin: Complexity and Obscurity in the Law, and how we might mitigate them – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
‘Speech by Lord Justice Irwin: Complexity and Obscurity in the Law, and how we might mitigate them.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 19th April 2018
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Latitude for litigants in person? Apparently not (just about…) – Zenith Chambers
‘On 21 February 2018 judgment was given in the case of Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12.’
Zenith Chambers, 26th February 2018
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Aktas v Adepta and the Difficulty of Applying to Strike out “Second” Claim Forms – Zenith Chambers
‘The decision of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Aktas v Adepta and Dixie v British Polythene Industries Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 sets a demanding test for Defendants seeking to strike out “second” Claim Forms where service of a “first” Claim Form has failed.’
Zenith Chambers, 5th March 2018
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Are you being served (electronically)? Email service under the CPR and the Party Wall Act 1996 – Practical Law: Construction Blog
‘Two recent cases, one in the Court of Appeal, the other in the Supreme Court, have created significant uncertainty around the acceptability of email service. It seems that there may now be a disparity between the CPR and the Party Wall Act 1996, despite the similarities in the wording of the relevant provisions for the two regimes.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 14th March 2018
Rule committee declines to consider contempt question over solicitors who act on fraudulent claims – Litigation Futures
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has rejected a High Court judge’s suggestion that it consider whether solicitors who sign statements of truth on behalf of fraudulent clients could be held in contempt of court.’
Litigation Futures, 13th March 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Aktas v Adepta and the difficulty of applying to strike out “second” claim forms – Zenith PI
‘The decision of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Aktas v Adepta [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 sets a demanding test for Defendants seeking to strike out “second” Claim Forms where service of a “first” Claim Form has failed.’
Zenith PI, 5th March 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
Court of Appeal backs unsuccessful claimant against council over QOCS application – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by an unsuccessful personal injury claimant over whether the qualified one-way costs shifting (“QOCS”) regime in the Civil Procedure Rules applied to his claim involving a local authority.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th February 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Court of Appeal overturns ruling denying claimant QOCS protection – Litigation Futures
‘A judge was wrong to order an unsuccessful claimant to pay the costs of parties added to a pre-LASPO personal injury claim after the qualified one-way cost shifting (QOCS) rules came into force, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 27th February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
High Court rejects non-party litigation privilege claim – Litigation Futures
‘An attempt to claim litigation privilege by global mining and commodities giant Glencore, in a case where it was not the party to proceedings, has been rejected by the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 27th February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Supreme Court: No dispensation for LiPs in complying with rules and orders – Litigation Futures
‘A lack of representation may mean that litigants in person (LiPs) are afforded some latitude in case management decisions and in hearings, but it will “not usually justify” applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or court orders, the Supreme Court said today.’
Litigation Futures, 21st February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Supreme Court: no indulgence for litigants in person – Family Law
‘Mr Barton is a seasoned litigator. He first sued, and eventually settled with, lawyers who had dealt with financial relief proceedings for him. The defendants in the later Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 acted for him in his claim against those original lawyers after Wright Hassall (WH) had come of the court record in a dispute over fees. WH sued him for their fees and obtained a summary judgment. Mr Barton, acting in person (a litigant in person (LiP)) claimed against WH in professional negligence.’
Family Law, 22nd February 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
Breaking: Supreme Court rules against treating LiP as a special case – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The Supreme Court today narrowly rejected a plea from a litigant in person for special dispensation in navigating civil procedure rules. Justices ruled by a majority of 3-2 in Barton v Wright Hassall that unrepresented claimant Mark Barton should have checked whether he could email a claim form and that without such permission his claim was invalid.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st February 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
CPRC backs rule changes to ensure courts sit in public – Litigation Futures
‘The Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) has backed rule changes to ensure that courts sit in public “irrespective of the parties’ consent” unless certain strict conditions are met.’
Litigation Futures, 13th February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
CPR rules allow for continued document redaction, rules High Court – OUT-LAW.com
‘The High Court has ruled that the entitlement to redact documents survived the coming into force of the CPR and applied equally to the right to inspect under CPR 31.14 and to the requirements of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th February 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Costs judge calls for “authoritative guidance” on applications by former clients for their files – Litigation Futures
‘Authoritative guidance on whether clients can demand their full files from previous solicitors would help the Senior Courts Costs Office deal with the large number of applications it is facing, a costs judge has said.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regional “ethos” of Business & Property Courts on show as Bristol judge refuses London transfer – Litigation Futures
‘The focus of the new Business & Property Courts (B&PC) structure on keeping cases in the regions and not transferring them to London unless necessary has seen a judge in Bristol refuse an application to move a piece of group litigation to the capital.’
Litigation Futures, 1st February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
High Court rejects BBC’s bid to move Paradise Papers case to media list – Litigation Futures
‘Offshore law firm Appleby has won the first skirmish in its case against the BBC and The Guardian newspaper over the ‘Paradise Papers’ leak, after the High Court refused the defendants’ bid to move the case from the Chancery Division to the media and communications list.’
Litigation Futures, 29th January 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Radical new disclosure regime to ‘spell out’ lawyers’ duties – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A radical new disclosure regime for the Business and Property Courts will have a “far-reaching effect on civil litigation”, a leading City lawyer has claimed.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th January 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
