‘A local authority is entitled to the costs protection conferred on claimants in Aarhus Convention claims, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has slashed a claimant company’s costs budget from £9.5m to £4.3m, describing it as “entirely unreliable” and “deliberately manipulated”.’
Litigation Futures, 9th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A group of employees who successfully appealed a tribunal ruling over the interpretation of their contracts cannot recover court fees because their union paid them, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 4th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The family court has renewed a stern message to litigants that it will not tolerate non-compliance with court orders. The Honourable Mr Justice Keehan said practitioners must be made aware that poor practices pre-dating new Civil Procedure Rules should no longer be a feature of family litigation.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A claimant who took a credit hire case from the small claims court all the way to the Court of Appeal must pay her own costs because the defendant insurer’s behaviour was not “unreasonable”, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The recent case of Laporte v The Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 371 (QB), which came before Turner J (pictured), reinforced the pro-ADR stance of courts and the obligation on parties to seriously consider and engage with ADR processes. Although the case also dealt with indemnity costs, this article specifically focuses upon ADR.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal held that where a criminal suspect is remanded in custody, Article 5 of the Convention requires the police to notify the court as soon as possible if there is no longer a reasonable basis for suspecting them. It also held that the police and CPS must aid the court in observing its duty to show ‘special diligence’ in managing a suspect’s detention, by investigating the case conscientiously and by promptly bringing relevant material to the court’s attention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’
Free Movement, 16th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘It may come as a surprise to many solicitors that there is a presumption that the costs of making and complying with an application for pre-action disclosure are to be paid by the party making the application.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th February 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) [2015] EWCA Civ 26; [2015] WLR (D) 44
‘Where a court was determining, for the purposes of article 13 of the Hague Convention 1980, whether a child objected to being returned and had attained the age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of its views, the use of sub-tests and technicality were to be avoided.’
WLR Daily, 27th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Parties that want to transfer cases to London will need to provide a much fuller explanation as to why, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 10th February 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A claimant’s failure to update his budget in advance of an unplanned preliminary hearing has led a High Court judge to rule that “every assumption” would be made against him in assessing the costs.’
Litigation Futures, 28th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The words “contract of service” in section 2(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 Act were not to be given a construction broader than their usual meaning. It followed that the claimants, as members of the armed forces, were not “employees” for the purposes of section 2(1) the 1969 Act and the fixed success fee regime for employer’s liability claims, as set out in Section IV of CPR Pt 45 (pre 1 April 2013), did not apply to their claims against the defendant ministry.’
WLR Daily, 20th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A problem frequently arises when, for one reason or another – most frequently the late arrival of the client in a solicitor’s office – the limitation period is nearly up, but one has not got the medical report or one has not got the materials needed for the drafting of the Particulars of Claim or indeed has grave doubts about whether the claim is viable, but plainly proceedings need to be commenced notwithstanding. In those circumstances, it is recognised as the best practice, following CPR 6.4(1)(b), to issue a claim form but to notify the court that the Claimant wishes to serve the Claim Form. If one does not do that, the court will serve the Claim Form automatically, whereas if you undertake to serve it yourself, you will have up to four months within which to serve the Claim Form. During that time, one can ensure that what needs to be done in order to present a coherent and correctly presented claim can be done.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The principles to apply when considering whether to allow an application under 6.15 (service of the CF by alternative method or at an alternative place). The evidence in support must explain the failure to serve.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others [2015] WLR (D) 11
‘The applicable time limit for service outside the jurisdiction of a claim form on a Scottish registered company, at its registered office in Scotland, where the claimant sought to serve the claim form under section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006 was six months from the date of issue of the claim form, as laid down by CPR r 7.5(2).’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This is a housing case, but the procedural issue in this decision is only tangentially related to that. Nonetheless, it is a matter worth noting.’
NearlyLegal, 10th January 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Downing v Peterborough & Stamford NHS Foundation Trust [2014]EWHC 4216 (QB) heard by Sir David Eady on 12th December 2014 the Claimant received an additional £75,000 in damages after beating its own Part 36 offer.’
Zenith PI Blog, 5th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Desmond Rutledge provides a practice note on challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in a welfare benefits case.’
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 6th January 2015
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
‘The fact that an individual or a company is a litigant in person is not a reason for the “disapplication” of court orders, rules and directions, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025