‘Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, the standard basis of assessment of costs in civil litigation has required costs to be proportionate to the matters in issue as well as reasonably incurred and proportionate in amount.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th April 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The new rule on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury actions, which comes into force today under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, brings with it “a lot of potential for satellite litigation”, a leading defence lawyer has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 13th April 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A cautionary tale on how, when things go badly wrong, it is, by and large, better not to take active steps to make them worse.’
Nearly Legal, 8th April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A claim for misuse of private information should be categorised as a tort for the purposes of service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r 3.3(5) did not apply to orders made under rule 6.5(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Therefore an order under rule 6.5(1) did not have to state that the debtor could apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.’
WLR Daily, 1st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules encourages parties to settle their disputes. It does this by imposing sanctions if one party turns down an offer to settle but then doesn’t get a better result at trial. The rules are complex, so Andrew Mitchell takes a closer look at the latest changes to Part 36.’
Park Square Barristers, 1st April 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
PF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 251; [2015] WLR (D) 149
‘Where a decision of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal was not unanimous and the votes of the tribunal members were equally divided, the power conferred on the presiding member of the tribunal to provide the casting vote was not to be exercised irrespective of the nature and extent of the disagreement between the tribunal members. Disagreement as to the applicable law might in general justify the exercise of the casting vote, but not disagreement on fundamental primary factual issues.’
WLR Daily, 25th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘“You can’t get blood out of a stone”. “There’s no point in throwing good money after bad”. Many will have found themselves using clichés when advising a claimant where the defendant’s ability to meet any future award is very much in doubt. In professional negligence claims the normal expectation is that the defendant will have professional indemnity insurance cover that will meet any claim, but how can one be sure? And even if there is cover can one find out the level of that cover?’
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th March 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137
‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’
WLR Daily, 20th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A recent case heard by Mr Justice Phillips in the High Court has considered the increasingly popular argument that Noise Induced Hearing Loss is an injury rather than a disease.’
Zenith PI Blog, 24th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In Home Group v Matrejek [2015] EWHC 441 (QB), the High Court has applied Rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the guidance on applications for relief from sanctions in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 (our note here) to a possession claim based on nuisance and anti-social behaviour.’
Nearly Legal, 24th March 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Where a party, which entered an acknowledgment of service to proceedings and made an unsuccessful challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the proceedings, had entered a further acknowledgment of service in its application for permission to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse its challenge, that party would have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, within article 24 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), because of the provisions of CPR r 11(8), unless it had first applied to the court for an extension of time to file the further acknowledgment of service sufficient to enable the application for permission to appeal, or the appeal if permission was granted, to be determined.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Advice mainly to beginners, but we can all learn.’
Zenith PI, 18th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A vexed question: Where is the boundary between assistance and being in the arena? And how does the internet impact on that. The latest attempt to give guidance is the curious case of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders UKEAT/0217/14/RN before Langstaff P and 2 lay members.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘Normally, where an application for judicial review is made the first stage is for a judge to consider the grounds for judicial review and the acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence, then decide without holding a hearing whether permission should be granted. Lawyers commonly refer to this decision as being “on the papers” because there is no oral hearing.’
Free Movement, 19th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘In his monthly column, originally published by PLC, James Bickford Smith considers again the Supreme Court’s judgment in Coventry v Lawrence (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46, the adjourned hearing of which has been listed for 9-11 February 2015. James assesses some of the key issues which have been debated since his initial analysis of the decision in October 2014, including the potential uncertainty for current funding arrangements that are not dependent on the Access to Justice Act 1999.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘From 6 April 2015, the structure of Part 36 will change and a number of new rules are to be introduced. This is the most fundamental change in the Part 36 rules for many years.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th January 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In this article Cloisters’ barrister Paul Epstein QC comments on what disclosure actually means and what the obligations are in the Employment Tribunal. He discusses the different types of disclosure, the new CPR test and what parties need to do.’
Cloisters, 10th February 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘A High Court judge has criticised the insurance industry over a failed attempt to have noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) reclassified as an injury rather than a disease, in a bid to reduce the level of pre-Jackson success fees defendants would have to pay.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
The High Court has ruled that noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) should be treated as a disease rather than an injury for the purpose of claims – and therefore be subject to higher success fees.
Law Society’s Gazette, 17th March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025