‘Lord Justice Jackson has called for the recently extended exemption for insolvency cases from the impact of his reforms to come to an end, describing recoverability as “an instrument of oppression, which is liable to crush defendants who have a good defence”.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Lord Justice Jackson has urged the government to ditch one of the final exemptions to his civil justice reforms.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Benjamin Oluwadare Alade [2015] EWCA Civ 685 dealt with the issue of when it was appropriate to strike out a claim on the grounds that the claimant has abused the process of the court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Mishcon de Reya has failed in its bid to overturn the grant of relief from sanctions made in favour of claimants who are suing the London law firm for professional negligence but failed to serve their funding notice in time.’
Litigation Futures, 13th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has overturned a ruling that found a defendant had agreed a Part 36 offer to settle.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This case note discusses the power of a judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to make an extended civil restraint order under para 3.2 (1) (b).’
NIPC Law, 12th Ocotber 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Today, on the 1st October 2015, when we are supposed to be celebrating the brave new world of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA”) as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), cartelists and other competition law infringers up and down the land must be rubbing their hands in glee at the transitional provisions contained in Rule 119 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (“the 2015 CAT Rules” or the “New Rules”).’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 1st October 2015
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘A and M, aged 12 and 4 respectively, brought claims in damages for personal injuries and consequential losses sustained in a road traffic accident on the 31st July 2013. Agreement was reached with the insurers for the Defendant for both general damages and special damages through the usual minor injury claim portal process. Naturally, that agreement was subject to the ultimate approval of the Court pursuant to Part 21 CPR. DJ Lumb at the County Court Sitting at Birmingham was able to provisionally approve awards of £2115 and £2065 respectively on 14th August 2015. In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay the fixed recoverable costs calculated in accordance with CPR Part 45. The case had progressed in the standard way up until this point.’
Zenith PI Blog, 29th September 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The fact that competition over success fees has not developed, as Lord Justice Jackson hoped it would, is down to both consumer ignorance and solicitors’ reluctance to do it, according to the judge who last month cast doubt on the widespread personal injury charging model.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd September 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A party that accidentally omitted an important page from its trial bundle has failed in its attempt to persuade the judge to reconsider his ruling. The claimant in Absolute Lofts as West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd & Anor (No2) [2015] EWHC 2632 (IPEC) made the application the day after His Honour Judge Hacon handed down his decision.’
Litigation Futures, 18th September 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
O’Brien v Shorrock and another [2015] EWHC 1630 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 366
The obligation under paragraph 19.4 of the CPR Practice Direction 44, since amended, was to inform the other party, by the notice of funding, of the date when a conditional fee agreement with retrospective effect was made rather than the earlier date when it came into effect.
WLR Daily, 12th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A party’s refusal to demonstrate that it would have the means to pay costs is not in itself enough to make an order for security for costs because it could simply be a litigation tactic, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th August 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Cases relating to children are to be excluded from the scope of costs management, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has decided, while there will be new provisions to encourage agreement of budgets.’
Litigation Futures, 10th August 2015,
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Civil procedure rules are set to be changed to make cases relating to children exempt from costs management.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th August 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘County courts can order tenants on the small claims track (SCT) to pay more than the costs of issuing the claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 6th August 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A two-partner central London law firm has succeeded in striking out a professional negligence claim for over £8m.’
Full story
Legal Futures, 3rd August 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘On the 9th October 2014, the Court of Appeal heard a number of applications for permission to appeal by the parents of two children, who had been the subject of care and placement orders.’
Tanfield Chambers, 18th June 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has handed down its Judgment in Coventry v Lawrence in which it considered the compatibility of the system for the recovery of success fees and ATE premiums under the Access to Justice Act 1999 with the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 and Article 1 Protocol 1. The Court held by a majority of 5-2 (Lord Neuberger, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Mance and Lord Carnwarth in the majority and Lord Clarke and Lady Hale dissenting) that the system is compatible. Success fees and ATE premiums entered into under the AJA 1999 scheme will therefore remain to be recoverable by successful claimants. Whether the decision will be challenged before the ECtHR in Strasbourg and, if so,whether the European Court will take the same view as the Supreme Court remains to be seen.’
Henderson Chambers, 24th July 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In a wide-ranging decision earlier this month, the Court of Appeal has clarified a number of key questions on jurisdiction where an accident happens abroad during a holiday booked from UK. Most significantly, Arden LJ (giving the leading judgment) held that direct damage in the jurisdiction is required to come within the tort jurisdictional gateway in the CPR, effectively overruling earlier first instance decisions that indirect or consequential damage was sufficient. While this would prevent many overseas accidents from being litigated in the UK, Arden LJ did carve out an exception for Fatal Accident Act claims, which she considered involved “direct damage” in the UK. She also took the opportunity to provide her own “gloss” on the so-called “Canada Trust gloss”. Peppered throughout the judgment are some blistering but instructive observations on defective witness statements.’
Henderson Chambers, 24th July 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Unreasonableness, intransigence and the taking of every point must now be regarded as unacceptable in the post-Jackson world, a High Court judge has warned in setting out how to comply with the overriding objective to deal with cases at proportionate cost.’
Litigation Futures, 13th July 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025