‘Comments around the launch of the Business and Property Courts (BPC) underline the judicial service’s commitment to high-quality commercial litigation regardless of where a case is filed in England and Wales, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘An action was brought by a Claimant child for serious injuries she sustained in a road traffic accident. She recovered 90% of her claim in a liability trial however it was agreed between the parties that a preliminary issue should be tried as to whether her severe developmental abnormalities had been caused by the accident.’
Park Square Barristers, 22nd November 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘On 30th October 2017, the Court of Appeal finally settled whether fundamental dishonesty needs to pleaded before a Defendant can rely on CPR 44.16(1) to set aside QUOCS.’
Park Square Barristers, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘There is no immediate need for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) to introduce a new privacy rule for certain costs issues in environmental cases as it could conflict with its open justice review, it has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In a commendable judgment dated 24 October 2016 in Premier Motorauctions v Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Snowden J injected a much needed dose of realism into an issue which had, for too long, suffered from a regrettable degree of uncertainty, namely security for costs applications against parties with after the event (ATE) insurance cover. Cases this year suggest that this is now a go-to authority for applications of this sort.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘There is to be a new part of the Civil Procedure Rules to deal with the launch of the Business and Property Courts (BPCs) to emphasise that no case is too big to be tried outside London, it has been decided.’
Litigation Futures, 20th November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Joseph James Penn Revill (a protected party proceedings by his litigation friend, Kirsty Marie Jarram) v Philip Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB). The claimant, who lacked the capacity to litigate and was acting by his litigation friend, sought damages for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. His claim included a claim for future losses.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th November 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal has asked a costs judge to look again at the application of proportionality after ruling the new test was incorrectly applied. In the long-awaited appeal in BNM v MGN, master of the rolls Sir Terence Etherton held that senior costs judge Gordon-Saker had been wrong in principle to subject recoverable base cost and additional liabilities to the new proportionality rule.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th November 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A default position that all court hearings should be conducted in public, and parties and witnesses named, is under consideration by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) as part of a push to emphasise the importance of open justice, it has emerged.’
Litigation Futures, 7th November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The “strong public interest” in pursuing claims for fraud, bribery and corruption may justify allowing the use of documents obtained in one set of legal proceedings in a different set of proceedings, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A “wholesale cultural change” in the approach to disclosure in the Business and Property Courts is needed, a judiciary-led working group has said, which will be brought about by a completely new rule and guidelines applying to the majority of cases.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2025