‘In Churchill v Boot 2016 (QBD 22/04/2016) permission to appeal against a master’s order refusing permission to amend a cost budget was refused.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th May 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘HHJ Armstrong refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal the decision of District Judge Read that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the Claimant could not establish need in relation to a vehicle he had hired.’
Zenith PI Blog, 27th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)
‘Claiming that he had been unlawfully detained, the claimant sought, through the route of judicial review, immediate release from detention, determination of the defendant’s liability for his false imprisonment and resolution as to whether, if false imprisonment was established, damages should be compensatory or nominal. The defendant had detained the claimant under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The judge held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013 and was entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment, to be assessed on a compensatory basis. The claimant failed in his public law claim in relation to accommodation, deportation and removal. An issue arose as to costs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that as the claimant had succeeded on only one issue out of four he was entitled to only 25% of his costs.’
WLR Daily, 12th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) by the victim of an accident in France does not have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.
Litigation Futures, 26th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In recent years there have been many high-profile protests on public property; St Paul’s Cathedral and the Parliament Square protests are two of the best known. These resulted in the cases of City of London v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 and Hall and others v Mayor of London [2010] EWCA Civ 817. There are also numerous instances of protesters occupying privately-owned commercial land, claiming the protection of human rights defences to stay in possession. Ultimately, the law is against the trespassers but, without swift action, delay can cost the landowner significant sums. These costs are commonly due to the extra security required to prevent further trespassers from entering; the halt to construction or refurbishment works; and the disruption to a working building. It is not uncommon for landowners to incur costs of several hundred thousand pounds while enforcing possession orders against trespassers. Owners would be well advised to plan for such an incursion if there is a risk that their property could be a target.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In Phillips v Willis the Court of Appeal held that it was wrong in law and “irrational” for a claim proceeding via the low-value RTA Protocol to be reallocated to the small claims track simply because only hire charges remained in dispute. The claim should properly have been dealt with at a Stage 3 hearing.’
Zenith PI Blog, 25th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The new format bill of costs developed by the Hutton committee needs to be brought into use – perhaps from October 2017 – but should be decoupled from the J-Codes to make it more palatable to the profession, Lord Justice Jackson said last week in a bid to restart momentum towards one of the unfinished elements of his reforms.’
Litigation Futures, 25th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Civil Recovery claims commenced under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) must be brought under CPR 8 in accordance with paragraph 4.1 of the Civil Recovery Proceedings Practice Direction.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 15th April 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The Defendants appealed against a master’s order that service of a claim form by the Claimants on their solicitors amounted to good service. The Claimants applied for service by an alternative method under CPR 6.15.’
Zenith PI Blog, 19th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘What happens when a party to proceedings refuses to give disclosure of documents held by its subsidiary? Can the parent company simply refuse to give disclosure on the basis that the subsidiary is a separate legal entity? CPR 31.8 provides that a party is obliged to give disclosure of documents in its “control.” In Ardila v ENRC [2015] EWHC 3761 (Comm) Males J sought to reconcile the competing first instance and appellate decisions on whether a parent company can be said to control the documents of its subsidiary.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Dodge the tumbleweed blowing down the corridors, enter any Employment Tribunal (ET) waiting room and you will almost certainly see at least one employment lawyer sitting, staring at the dregs in their polystyrene cup looking to see whether the tealeaves will reveal if and when ET litigation will rise again, or whether the end of the ET system is nigh.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch)
‘The judge dismissed the defendants’ application to strike out the claimants’ claim, a decision which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the claimants’ appeal from that decision and ordered that the defendants pay the claimants’ costs in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The costs judge subsequently refused the defendants’ application to stay the immediate detailed assessment of those costs. The defendants appealed from that decision on the ground that, by CPR r 47.1, the costs of proceedings could not be subject to detailed assessment until the proceedings were concluded, unless the appellate court had expressly ordered the costs to be assessed immediately, which it had not.’
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A notable and well-known exception to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) is that a Claimant whose claim is found to be “fundamentally dishonest” loses the protection of the QOCS rules.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The amended costs management rules came into force today as part of the latest CPR update, following the review carried out by a Civil Procedure Rules Committee group headed by Mr Justice Coulson.’
Litigation Futures, 6th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Swindon Borough Council v Webb (trading as Protective Coatings) [2016] EWCA Civ 152
‘Whilst hesitating to be prescriptive in a matter where the liberty of the subject is at stake, and where the circumstances are likely to be infinitely various, the procedure provided by CPR r 81.31 should be followed where a contemnor seeks his discharge before the expiry of his sentence (para 23).’
WLR Daily, 16th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This has been a bit of an epic. First, the problem of High Court Enforcement Officers using form N293A to obtain writs of possession against tenants was raised by us in November 2015, then the scale of that use became clear by January 2016, and there were updates in February. Now, the coup de grace (which, if I am entirely honest, I’ve known was coming for a while).’
Nearly Legal, 21st March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Defendants have failed in two separate recent attempts to persuade courts to interpret the part 36 costs rules in a way that suited them.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Gentry v Miller and another [2016] EWCA Civ 141
‘When dealing with an application under CPR r 13.3 to set aside a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service entered under CPR Pt 12 or an application under CPR r 39.3(5) to set aside a judgment given where a party did not attend the trial, the court should first establish whether the express requirements of rule 13.3 or rule 39.3(5) were satisfied and, if so, apply the three-stage test laid down for the exercise of the discretion under rule 3.9 to grant relief from sanctions. The first stage of the test, as to whether there was a serious or significant breach, applies to the applicant’s default in failing to acknowledge service or to attend trial, not to any subsequent delay in applying to set the judgment aside (paras 23–25).’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024