Carter-Ruck granted relief from sanctions after solicitor “misread” CPR – Litigation Futures

Posted August 22nd, 2014 in case management, civil procedure rules, costs, news, solicitors, time limits by tracey

‘The High Court this week granted libel specialists Carter-Ruck relief from sanctions after an assistant solicitor “misread” the Civil Procedure Rules and was almost four months late in sending out a funding notice.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 22nd August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Claimant lawyers hit back over “cynical” part 36 offers – Litigation Futures

‘The Forum of Complex Injury Lawyers (FOCIS) has hit back after a report for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) recommended that part 36 should be reformed, partly to discourage claimant lawyers from making “cynical” offers.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 20th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Rule committee backs part 36 reforms – Litigation Futures

Posted August 19th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is to consider how part 36 can be reformed – to simplify it, allow offers by counterclaiming defendants and discourage “cynical” claimant offers.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims 2014 – Civil Justice Council

‘Civil Justice Council issues new guidance on instructing experts in civil claims.’

Full guidance

Civil Justice Council, 13th August 2014

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Comments Off

High Court: making defendant pay 10% more for rejecting part 36 offer would add “penal element” – Litigation Futures

Posted August 13th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, injunctions, news, part 36 offers, penalties by sally

‘A High Court judge has ruled that making a defendant who rejected a part 36 offer pay an additional 10% of the sum awarded for costs would introduce a “penal element” and be unjust.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Witness statements, Mitchell and CPR rules 3.9 and 32.10 – Sovereign Chambers

Posted August 7th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, evidence, news, time limits, trials, witnesses by sally

‘David Partington and Judy Dawson, barristers in the Sovereign Chambers Civil Team in Leeds, consider the civil procedural difficulties that the late service of witness statements cause for both the defaulting and innocent parties, given the interplay of, “Jackson”, Denton, and the cases dealing with sanction for late service of witness statements.’

Full story

Sovereign Chambers, 16th July 2014

Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Supreme Court agrees to hear case on eviction and disability discrimination – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Supreme Court has issued a last-minute order to prevent the eviction of a disabled social housing tenant.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 6th August 2014

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off

Arguably Serious – Aster Communities Ltd v Akerman-Livingstone – NearlyLegal

‘Aster Communities Ltd (formerly Flourish homes Ltd) v Akerman-Livingstone [2014] EWCA Civ 1081 (30 July 2014) is an extraordinary decision that will – if allowed to stand – have a significant impact on the day-to-day management of possession claims in the county court.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 5th August 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off

IG Index Ltd v Cloete – WLR Daily

IG Index Ltd v Cloete [2014] EWCA Civ 1128; [2014] WLR (D) 360

‘CPR r 31.22 applied to restrict the use of documents disclosed pursuant to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 and, their replacement, the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.’

WLR Daily, 31st July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Browning v Information Commissioner and Another – WLR Daily

Browning v Information Commissioner and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1050;  [2014] WLR (D) 346

‘The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 permitted the tribunal when hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it.’

WLR Daily, 30th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Ballinger and another v Mercer Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Ballinger and another v Mercer Ltd and another; [2014] EWCA Civ 996; [2014] WLR (D) 335

‘Where a claimant applied to introduce a new claim by amendment under CPR r 17.4, and the defendant could show a prima facie defence of limitation, the burden was on the claimant to show that the defence was not reasonably arguable. Amendments seeking to add or substitute a new cause of action would only be permitted if they arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as were already in issue on the existing claims.’

WLR Daily, 17th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Cary v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily

Cary v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 987; [2014] WLR (D) 320

‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the procedure for the appointment of assessors in discrimination cases under the Equality Act 2010.’

WLR Daily, 17th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Court of Appeal warns of consequences for overly long bundles and skeletons – Litigation Futures

Posted July 15th, 2014 in appeals, case management, civil procedure rules, costs, courts, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has hit out forcefully at unnecessarily long bundles and skeleton arguments that are anything but.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 15th July 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Recalibrating Mitchell – New Law Journal

Posted July 14th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, sanctions by sally

‘Dominic Regan provides a guide to the post-Mitchell three-step test.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 11th July 2014

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

Mitchell: conjoined appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Practitioners will be conscious of the ridiculous practice that ensued in the lower courts following the ‘guidance’ dispensed by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 as to the operation and application of rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules – Relief from Sanction.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 14th July 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Expert welcomes Court of Appeal’s “more nuanced approach” to granting relief from ‘Mitchell’ sanctions – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 8th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, courts, news, proportionality, sanctions by tracey

‘Courts should be much more ready to grant relief from sanctions for failure to comply with court orders, practice directions and rules after the Court of Appeal found that the current approach had been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, an expert has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 8th July 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

Court of Appeal takes some of the blame for “misunderstood and misapplied” Mitchell ruling – Litigation Futures

‘The Mitchell ruling has been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, the Master of the Rolls said today in issuing more detailed guidance on how it should be used – while also recognising that some of the language used in Mitchell may have contributed to the problems.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th July 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Court of Appeal sets out 3-stage test for applications for relief from sanctions – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal’s ruling today [4 July] in three linked appeals relating to its its earlier judgment in Mitchell will make civil litigation less adversarial and more co-operative, the Law Society has predicted.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 4th July 2014

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off

Mitchell-Game, Set and Match? – NearlyLegal

‘The eagerly awaited Court of Appeal judgement in Denton & others v TH White Ltd & others was handed down on Friday. Dyson LJ provides a careful methodology on the approach to applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, with the aim to set to rights the fall-out from the landmark decision of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 6th July 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off

Hallam Estates v Baker : Extensions of time – time to get along? – Henderson Chambers

Posted June 26th, 2014 in agreements, appeals, civil procedure rules, delay, news, sanctions, time limits by sally

‘Lord Justice Jackson took this appeal as an opportunity to stress the importance of parties acting reasonably in agreeing to extensions of time where court hearings are not disrupted. Whilst one might have expected courts to be less approving of parties granting each other extensions of time following the 1 April 2013 reforms, the contrary appears to be the case: Jackson LJ made it quite clear that “…it was no part of my recommendations that parties should refrain from agreeing reasonable extensions of time, which neither imperil hearing dates nor otherwise disrupt the proceedings” (at [30]).

Full story (PDF)

Henderson Chambers, 27th May 2014

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Comments Off