‘On the true construction of the final proviso in section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 Part 20 the defendants in contribution proceedings were precluded from relying on a limitation defence pleaded against the claimants in the main proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A party seeking repayment of sums paid following an adjudication award against it has six years from the date of payment to do so, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Lord Justice Jackson has dismissed a negligence claim against Veale Wasbrough, now national firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, and the barrister it instructed to advise on a personal injury case.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 11th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Termination & its consequences. Chris Nillesen reports.’
Full story
New Law Journal, 24th April 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.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
‘The High Court decision in Lloyd v Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd [2015] EWHC 525 (QB) handed down on 20.3.2015 considers if there was abuse of process in those circumstances. It is also a useful example of the Court’s willingness to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
Zenith PI Blog, 30th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Advice mainly to beginners, but we can all learn.’
Zenith PI, 18th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘It is now known that 60 people from Stoke Mandeville hospital were abused by Jimmy Savile. But will they and his other victims receive compensation? And where will the money come from?’
Daily Telegraph, 26th February 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In December the High Court gave judgment in NA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4005 (QB). The claimant (who was born in 1977) said that while in her mother’s care she had suffered physical and emotional abuse, and that the defendant local authority had failed in their common law duty of care by failing either to remove her or protect her from the abuse.’
Full story
Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd February 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Costs, Confusion and Compromise (PDF)
Keynote Address of Mr Justice Foskett
Professional Negligence Lawyers’ Association Annual Conference, 4th December 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Mitchell [2014] 1 WLR 795 and Denton [2014] 1 WLR 3926 dealt with the situation of an application out of time, that is to say when the time had expired for performance of a step dictated by a rule or by practice direction or a court order had expired. But the further question arises, To what extent do the principles laid down there apply in the situation where one applies in time, that is to say before the expiry date? That is of great importance, because, if one is handling a case properly, it should become obvious, at least some days if not weeks in advance, that a particular time limit is not going to be able to be achieved. This may be for a variety of reasons, sometimes because of illness or – tell it not in Gath! – the delays of counsel. This matter was considered in depth fairly recently in Re Guidezone Ltd, Kaneria-v-Kaneria [2014] 1 WLR 3728, by Nugee J. In a full and careful judgment, the judge considered what was the position when an in-time application was made under CPR r.3.1(2)(a) for extension of time. He held that such an application was not an application for relief from sanctions, nor was it closely analogous to one. Therefore, Mitchell did not apply to it.’
Zenith PI Blog, 25th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Parties are advised to make applications in advance of the expiry of time limits in order to avoid a breach and have the courts look more favourably on their applications. It must be remembered however that an application made in time is not necessarily bound to succeed.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Where a court was determining whether to exercise its discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the one-year limitation period applying by virtue of section 4A of the 1980 Act to a claim for libel, the claimant’s ignorance of the limitation period would rarely if ever be a factor which carried any or any significant weight given the policy reasons underlying the one-year limitation period for libel claims.’
WLR Daily, 30th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 15th October 2014, the Court of Appeal had cause to review the manner in which a claimant might find a claim statute barred by reason of constructive knowledge.’
Zenith PI Blog, 5th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Lord Justice Jackson has called on the government to create a “single core limitation regime” for all claims in contract and tort, as recommended by the Law Commission.’
Litigation Futures, 4th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘How much knowledge does a potential claimant need before time begins to run against a competition claim against a party alleged to have breached competition law? This was the key question addressed by Mr Justice Simon in the first case in which an English Court has had to consider the effect of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA”) in the context of a competition claim.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 31st October 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘A recent case provides clarification and guidance on the issue of service by the courts in contravention of the claimant’s instructions.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Would an action against employers who were unidentifiable at the time of an initial claim against 8 other employers in 2003 succeed where it was argued that such proceedings were an abuse of process of the court, that there was cause of action estoppel and where the claim was statute barred and required an application under s 33 Limitation Act 1980?’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024