EAT denies claimants court fees recovery because union paid them – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Family court hammers firm in compliance crackdown – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 5th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, costs, family courts, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 4th March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Appeal judges reject bid for costs in case that started out in small claims court – Litigation Futures

Posted March 2nd, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, news, small claims by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 2nd March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Alternative dispute resolution – Law Society’s Gazette

‘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.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Court of Appeal rules on police duty to suspects in detention – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 27th February 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal – Free Movement

‘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).’

Full story

Free Movement, 16th February 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off

Costs and Applications for Pre-action Disclosure – Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 12th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, costs, disclosure, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 11th February 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) – WLR Daily

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

Comments Off

Rule committee raises bar for parties wanting to transfer cases to London – Litigation Futures

Posted February 10th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, costs, London, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 10th February 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

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