‘The High Court has upheld the right of a defendant in a personal injury claim to resile from a settlement agreement made three days before the discount rate was cut earlier this year.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Much has been written about the court’s discretion to grant relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR 3.9 over recent years, due to the reformulation of the rule in April 2013 and the landmark Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013]. The strictness of the approach in Mitchell led to an outcry from academics and practitioners, but that has now been allayed by the Court of Appeal in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014].’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th October 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The parties to procurement challenges are required to act quickly and in accordance with a strict timetable. When a losing bidder issues a claim, it must serve the claim form on the defendant within seven days after the date of issue. Pursuant to CPR 7.4(2), the particulars of claim are to be served no later than the latest time for serving the claim form. That is, they must also be served within seven days after the date of issue.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 18th October 2017
‘I recently represented the Claimant/Appellant before HHJ Gosnell in Leeds in relation to an appeal against the refusal of an application for relief from sanctions at first instance. The appeal was successful, with relief being granted and the Claimant being permitted to rely on his costs budget, despite it having been served over two months late, rather than being treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.’
Zenith PI, 16th October 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The infringement that was the subject of the appeal was the lifting of a fragment of a photo of the great man’s wedding photo in 1937 from the VisitWales.com website and its reuse on a website that advertises holiday cottages in Wales. Liability was not contested so the hearing before Deputy District Judge Vary was an assessment of damages only. According to paragraph [7] of Judge Hacon’s judgment, the learned deputy district judge awarded £250 on the user principle and declined to award additional damages under s.97 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the CDPA”). He ordered the copyright owner to pay the infringer’s travelling expenses on the ground that the claimant had failed in its obligation under CPR 1.3 to help the court further the overriding objective by bringing proceedings in the Irish Republic for infringement of the corresponding Irish copyright and threatening similar proceedings in the USA to maximize cost and pressure on the defendant to settle.’
NIPC Law, 15th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The Claimant brought a claim for personal injury arising out a road traffic accident which took place on 11th July 2014. The Claimant went on to make a Part 36 offer to accept an 85/15 split on liability dated 7th December 2015. The Defendant’s time for accepting the offer expired on 30th December 2015. The Defendant did not in fact accept the Claimant’s Part 36 offer until 29th January 2016. The delay in accepting the offer was therefore just under one month post expiry. Quantum was agreed in the sum of £10,000 which was paid. The issue was whether the Claimant’s costs were limited to fixed costs for the entire action or whether the Claimant was entitled to either assessed costs or indemnity costs for the period 30th December 2015 to 29th January 2016.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th October 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A regional costs judge has concluded that he was wrong to rule in a previous case that late acceptance of a part 36 offer automatically entitled the claimant to an award of indemnity costs, and thus provided an escape route out of fixed costs.’
Litigation Futures, 9th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Practitioners have been warned that they can no longer ignore the electronic bill of costs, which now seems certain to become mandatory in the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) and county courts on 6 April 2018.’
Litigation Futures, 6th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 1st October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, (the “Protocol”) is to come into force. This raises the question: what is a ‘debt’? For this Protocol, the only ‘guidance’ provided is on the Information Sheet (Annex 1), “you have received this [notice] because a business believes that you owe it money”. None of the draft or consultation papers provide further guidance or seek to define the term ‘debt’ under English law.’
4 KBW, 22nd September 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘The Supreme Court will hear an appeal in November by a litigant in person over the defective service of a negligence claim against a Midlands law firm, it has been confirmed.’
Litigation Futures, 29th September 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘RSPB, Friends of the Earth & Client Earth v. Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), 15 September 2017, Dove J. In my March 2017 post here, I explained that amendments to the costs rules for public law environmental claims threatened to undo much of the certainty that those rules had achieved since 2013. Between 2013 and February 2017, if you, an individual, had an environmental judicial review, then you could pretty much guarantee that your liability to the other side’s costs would be capped at £5,000 (£10,000 for companies) if you lost, and your recovery of your own costs would be limited to £35,000 if you won. In this way, the rules sought to avoid the cost of such claims becoming prohibitively expensive and thus in breach of Art.9(4) of the Aarhus Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th September 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has made yet another attempt to clarify rules around service of claim after a dispute over deadlines in a personal injury case.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th September 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has held that CPR 83.13 (permission required to issue a writ of possession) does not require that the occupier be given notice of the actual application for permission. What is required is that they should have sufficient knowledge about the case as a whole.’
Arden Chambers, 15th August 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘In this paper, presented at the recent Blackstone Chambers Employee Competition Seminar, Kerenza Davis addresses the tricky issue of protecting confidential documents when litigating in the areas of employee competition.’
Blackstone Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.employeecompetition.com
‘Often, a litigator’s single greatest desire is for clarity: of instructions, tactics, or argument. Few circumstances can disrupt this as effectively as a large group of clients or opponents, each clamouring for different (often mutually exclusive) approaches. Once such a case reaches a certain size, it is simply not feasible to proceed in the usual way, with all parties giving evidence and making submissions. There are a number of ways of addressing this problem, each with unique benefits and pitfalls.’
Hardwick Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The amount of a costs order in the employment tribunal (ET) can be made subject to detailed assessment, to be carried out (either by the ET or by a county court) in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (rule 78, ET Rules). It was traditionally understood that this application of the CPR to ET procedure was limited to the assessment of the level of costs, as opposed to the separate question of whether costs should be ordered at all. As reflected in the CPR, “costs follow the event” in the civil courts. In contrast, the ET has a limited costs jurisdiction, which depends on the existence of improper or unreasonable conduct and the exercise of discretion in the presence of such conduct as to whether to award costs.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Those who have been readers of this blog for a while may recall our campaign about evictions by High Court Sheriffs where the writs were (wrongly) obtained as an administrative act by using form N293A. This culminated in a practice note by Senior Master Fontaine, stressing that – for tenants, if not for trespassers or mortgage possessions – any application for a writ had to comply with CPR 83.13.’
Nearly Legal, 20th August 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court Master has called on the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) to resolve the “tension” between the need to “spell out in the eventual bill” the costs of costs budgeting and to include them in Precedent H.’
Litigation Futures, 16th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A regional costs judge has ruled in favour of claimants in the latest hearing to consider the issue of fixed costs for interim applications.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th August 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in Pre-Action Correspondence – Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through 2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right.’
NIPC Law, 4th August 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024