Suspension of evictions extended by 2 months – St Ives Chambers

‘Despite the government’s general stance on relaxation of lockdown and the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, the ban on taking active steps in possession claims or seeking to enforce possession orders has been extended until 23 August. This was following advice from the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Using documents for a collateral purpose and in separate proceedings – how likely are the courts to approve your application? – St Ives Chambers

Posted June 5th, 2020 in chambers articles, civil procedure rules, disclosure, documents, news by sally

‘There will certainly be occasions where the use of documents disclosed in separate proceedings are useful to your case and it is desirable either to disclose these in the present case or to obtain advice on collateral claims, but which applications are practically viable?’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, May 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Your Appeal Fails: London Borough of Hackney v Okoro [2020] EWCA Civ 681 – Falcon Chambers

‘Is an appeal from a possession order (or other order) made in a possession claim commenced under Part 55 of the CPR caught by the stay on “all proceedings brought under CPR Part 55” imposed by paragraph 2 of Practice Direction 51Z (as amended on 20 April 2020)?’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, 28th May 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Covid-19 Update: CPR PD51Z Applies to Appeals – Becket Chambers

‘This article seeks to provide a further update from my colleague Paul Tapsell’s article on residential possession and lease forfeiture proceedings during Covid-19.’

Full Story

Becket Chambers, 1st June 2020

Source: becket-chambers.co.uk

Relief from sanctions: An overview and case law update – St Ives Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in case management, civil procedure rules, coronavirus, news, sanctions by sally

‘In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, applications for relief from sanctions may become more frequent as deadlines are missed and court orders are not complied with. In three recent cases, the High Court has considered the applicable principles and provided guidance. Now, therefore, seems the ideal time to revisit the applicable principles.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 21st May 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Mediation: don’t panic in the pandemic, be prepared – Counsel

‘Might fear of the courts being overwhelmed by an anticipated flood of cases, after eventual emergence from lockdown, begin a trend amongst the judiciary to be more proactive in its encouragement of mediation? Colin Manning investigates.’

Full Story

Counsel, June 2020

Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk

Should there be a trial of limitation as a preliminary issue? – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in case management, civil procedure rules, limitations, news by sally

‘This article discusses whether to list a case for trial of “limitation” as a preliminary issue. This can be a matter of conflict between parties but, in the “age of QOCS”, can have significant benefits or repercussions for the litigants depending on the Court’s approach.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 21st May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Fixed Costs: The Impact of Contributory Negligence on Trial Advocacy Fees – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in civil procedure rules, contribution, costs, negligence, news, road traffic by sally

‘CPR 45.29C sets out the amount of fixed costs payable in Fast Track claims where a claim no longer continues under the RTA Protocol. Where a claim is disposed of at trial, costs of £2,655.00 are payable, alongside 20% of the damages agreed or awarded and the relevant trial advocacy fee. The protocol for EL/PL claims works in a similar way. It is trite that where the claim settles at Court on the day listed for trial, the advocacy fee is still payable.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 18th May 2020

Source: www.no5.com

When 52 is also 51 because 55. – Nearly Legal

‘An appeal to the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether appeals of possession orders (or indeed appeals from Part 55 possession proceedings generally) are caught by the Practice Direction 51Z stay of part 55 possession claims.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 27th May 2020

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Rule committee urged to review disbursements in fixed-cost cases – Litigation Futures

‘The Supreme Court has called on the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to review the issue of whether disbursements should be payable separately in fixed-cost personal injury cases.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 21st May 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Costs and Exaggeration: Morrow v Shrewsbury RUFC LTD [2020] EWHC 999 (QB) – Park Square Barristers

‘In a case in which fundamental dishonesty or fraud has not been found but, there has been a significant level of exaggeration, will the court reduce an award of costs? The answer, of course, is considering CPR Part 44: yes… possibly.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 5th May 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Court of Appeal rejects challenge over lawfulness of PD51Z staying possession proceedings: report – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld the lawfulness of Practice Direction 51Z, the Housing Law Practitioners Association (HLPA) has reported.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 12th May 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Not Arkin any more – Nearly Legal

‘This is the Court of Appeal judgment in the appellant’s challenge to the lawfulness, extent and effect of the stay of Part 55 possession proceedings until 25 June 2020 under Practice Direction 51Z.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 11th May 2020

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Court of Appeal rejects challenge to Covid-19 stay – Litigation Futures

‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge to the emergency practice direction issued by the Master of the Rolls to stay all possession proceedings for three months in response to Covid-19.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 11th May 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Residential Possession Proceedings: Coronavirus Lockdown – 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square

‘Thus far, the two major steps taken in housing law to address the
current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis are:
– CPR PD 51Z
– Coronavirus Act 2020 s.3 and Sch.29’

Full Story

4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 28th April 2020

Source: www.4-5.co.uk

Stay? Maybe Stayed? No Stay? – 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square

‘Without, hopefully, being too flippant, the above are, essentially, the questions that the Court of Appeal will be considering tomorrow in relation to Practice Direction 51Z, in Arkin v Marshall.’

Full Story

4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 29th April 2020

Source: www.4-5.co.uk

Derivative actions involving LLPs: common law test for permission trumps section 263 of the Companies Act 2006 – Hardwicke Chambers

On 21 April 2020, Zacaroli J allowed an appeal brought against the decision of HHJ Saunders in Homes of England v Nick Sellman (Holdings) Limited. The case concerned Bromham Road Development LLP (BRD), a limited liability partnership which owned the freehold of a property situated at 51 Bromham Road, Bedford (the property). Homes of England (HoE) and Nick Sellman (Holdings) Limited (Holdings) are each 50% partners in BRD. HoE alleged that Holdings, in breach of duties of honesty and good faith owed to HoE, and in breach of a duty to act in the best interests of BRD, delayed in executing documentation required to refinance the property. HoE alleged that this delay increased the amount required to redeem BRD’s original loan from Wellesley Finance plc by £206,933.21.

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 1st May 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Covid19 and Default Judgments – Thomas More Chambers

Posted April 28th, 2020 in civil procedure rules, coronavirus, default judgments, news, time limits by sally

‘On 6 April 2020, a few minor changes to the Civil Procedural Rules (“CPR”) came into effect; amongst them, changes to CPR 12.3, which brought a degree of welcome clarity to an area of conflicting case law. Many lawyers would be forgiven for thinking that, if the claimant issued proceedings and properly filed and served the claim form and particulars of claim and the defendant failed to acknowledge service or file a defence within the times stipulated by CPR 10.3 and 15.3, the claimant would be entitled to judgment in default. However, if, in the intervening period between the claimant’s representative requesting default judgment and judgment being entered (which as we all know can too often be substantial), the defendant files a defence, the court no longer has jurisdiction to enter that default judgment and any such judgment entered must be set aside, under CPR 13.2. This article identifies the key decisions on what now appears to be the settled position; and the effect this may have on how claimants’ and defendants’ representatives should approach ‘late’ acknowledgments of services and defences, particularly in light of the unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19.’

Full Story

Thomas More Chambers, 24th April 2020

Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk

To Me, To You: Offsetting Costs and QOCS Are Compatible, For Now. Siu Lai Ho V Seyi Adelekun [2020] EWCA Civ 517 – Parklane Plowden

‘The original dispute pertained to a claim (issued by the Respondent in these proceedings) which started under, and then exited, the Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents Protocol. On the first visit to the Court of Appeal, the issue was whether the Appellant’s (the Defendant in the original dispute) cost liability in respect of the ex-portal claim was limited to fixed costs. The Court of Appeal held that the fixed costs regime for which Section IIIA of CPR Part 45 provides was applicable and the parties had not contracted out of fixed costs. Absent any application by the Respondent pursuant to CPR 45.29J for a higher amount by reason of “exceptional circumstances”, the Respondent was thus entitled to £16,705.15 in respect of her costs of the claim. Resultingly, both parties had cost liabilities: the Appellant in regards to the ex-portal claim, and the Respondent in respect of the appeal.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 17th April 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

COVID-19 – trespasser possession and injunction proceedings – Application of the new Civil Procedure Rule Practice Direction 51Z – St Ives Chambers

‘The back drop to this case is that the new Practice Direction CPR 51Z effectively stays possession proceedings and enforcement issued pursuant to CPR 55 for 90 days from March 2020.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 16th April 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk