High Court sanctions claimant for failing to update budget – Litigtation Futures

Posted January 28th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, costs, delay, media, news, sanctions by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 28th January 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Broni v Ministry of Defence; Woof v Ministry of Defence; Barbour v Ministry of Defence – WLR Daily

Posted January 27th, 2015 in armed forces, civil procedure rules, costs, employment, fees, law reports by sally

Broni v Ministry of Defence; Woof v Ministry of Defence; Barbour v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 66 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 24

‘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

Comments Off

Premature service of Claim Form – avoiding disaster – Zenith PI Blog

Posted January 27th, 2015 in appeals, case management, civil procedure rules, documents, news, service by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Applications to allow service of Claim Form by alternative method/place – Explain your “Good Reason” – Zenith PI Blog

Posted January 27th, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, claims management, documents, news, service by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 20th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, documents, law reports, Scotland, service, time limits by sally

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

Comments Off

Asking for relief – NearlyLegal

‘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.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 10th January 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off

THE REAL ADVANTAGES AND RISKS OF PART 36 – Zenith PI Blog

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 5th January 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Challenging a Refusal of Permission to Appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in a Welfare Benefits Case – A Practice Note – Garden Court Chambers Blog

‘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.’

Full story

Garden Court Chambers Blog, 6th January 2015

Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Court of Appeal: litigants in person may get help with relief from sanctions, but only “at the margins” – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 5th January 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Regina (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Fathollahipour v Aliabadibenisi; May v Robinson – WLR Daily

Regina (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Fathollahipour v Aliabadibenisi; May v Robinson [2014] EWCA Civ 1633; [2014] WLR (D) 538

‘The approach to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal should be the same as for applications for relief from sanctions and should attract the same rigorous approach.’

WLR Daily, 16th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

QRS v Beach and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 19th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, default judgments, injunctions, law reports by sally

QRS v Beach and another [2014] EWHC 4189 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 542

‘In the context of CPR Pts 12 and 13 the term “judgment” was to be read as including any order made by the court when it entered default judgment.’

WLR Daily, 11th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Extensions of Time to File Notices of Appeal and Relief from Sanctions: R (on the application of DINJAN HYSAJ) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Fathollahipour v Aliabadibenisi: May v Robsinson – Zenith PI Blog

‘CPR r.3.9 rears its growling head again…but a more robust approach, nevertheless, should not be taken as encouragement to refuse reasonable extensions of time or to seek tactical advantage in every minor default.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 17th December 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Failure to file LQ – Relief from sanctions refused – Zenith PI Blog

Posted December 16th, 2014 in appeals, case management, civil procedure rules, documents, news, sanctions by tracey

‘British Gas Trading Ltd v Oak Cash & Carry Ltd [2014] EWHC 4058 (QB) 5th December 2014. Relief from sanctions refused where a failure to file the LQ in breach of an unless order led to the loss of the trial date. Although the Defendant applied for relief from sanctions, there was no for the default judgment to be set aside, and no evidence in support of such an application. In these circumstances, the court should not treat the application as though it had been made.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 15th December 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Mitchell and Denton have “direct bearing” on strike-outs for non-compliance – Litigation Futures

Posted December 16th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, news, sanctions, striking out by tracey

‘The Mitchell principles, restated in Denton, have a “direct bearing” on whether courts should impose strike-outs for non-compliance, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th December 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

High Court judge overturns “overly generous interpretation” of relief from sanctions rules – OUT-LAW.com

Posted December 15th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, delay, disciplinary procedures, interpretation, news by tracey

‘Parties to civil litigation cases have been issued with an important reminder of the need to manage their cases effectively after the High Court overturned an “overly generous interpretation” of the rules governing when relief from sanctions can be granted.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 15th December 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

High Court judge bemoans “appalling” level of costs in insurance dispute – Litigation Futures

Posted December 12th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A case in which £7m in legal costs were racked up over a dispute worth £904,000 is “an appalling state of affairs which brings no credit to modern commercial litigation”, a High Court judge declared yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 12th December 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others – WLR Daily

Posted December 4th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, treaties by sally

Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1539; [2014] WLR (D) 513

‘Where a case fell within article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention but was not a claim for judicial review and therefore not an “Aarhus Convention claim” within CPR r 45.41 it would be inappropriate for the court to relax the usual principles applying to the making of protective costs orders by nevertheless applying the costs protection regime introduced by rule 45.41.’

WLR Daily, 27th November 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Supreme Court agrees to hear case on breach of unless order – Litigation Futures

‘The Supreme Court is to consider the consequences of failing to comply with an unless order for a second time, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 28th November 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Relief From Sanctions – Part 2 – Applying in Time – Zenith PI Blog

Posted November 25th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, limitations, news, sanctions, time limits by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 25th November 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

QOCS “does not apply” to appeals in PI cases started pre-LASPO – Litigation Futures

Posted November 24th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does not apply on appeal if it did not apply at first instance, Master Haworth has ruled in the Senior Court Costs Office.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 24th November 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off