‘In what has turned into a continuing series, there are further updates on enforcement of possession orders via the High Court, obtaining writs and the scandalous conduct of many High Court Enforcement Officers.’
Nearly Legal, 13th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Lord Justice Jackson gave the IPA Annual Lecture on the 28 January 2016. “The purpose of this lecture is to argue that we should now introduce an extensive regime of fixed costs for civil litigation as proposed in chapters 15 and 16 of the Review of Civil Litigation Costs Final Report. In the light of recent developments the time is now ripe to take this substantial step…” ‘
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 29th January 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The Court of Appeal is to decide on whether a party who beats a part 36 offer in a case where fixed fees apply is eligible for indemnity costs as well.’
Litigation Futures, 18th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The introduction of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in clinical negligence cases is still planned for 1 October 2016, the Department of Health has confirmed.’
Litigation Futures, 14th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3547 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 555
‘In fitness to practise hearings there was no formal burden or standard of proof at the sanction stage of the proceedings; rather it was for the panel to use its own professional judgment to decide what sanction would be proportionate in order to protect the public interest, which included: (1) protection of patients and others; (2) maintenance of public confidence in the professions and the regulatory body; and (3) declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has held in Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 that:
(1) a party who failed to obtain relief from sanctions for non compliance with an order
cannot make a second application for relief without demonstrating a material change
in circumstances; and
(2) belated compliance with an order does not, of itself, constitute a material change
in circumstances.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 7th January 2016
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘The committee set up to decide the future of legal costs in civil litigation has recommended that a new of bill of costs based on electronic assessment should be in place from October.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th January 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1287; [2015] WLR (D) 538
‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’
WLR Daily, 14th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Courts must consider “all the circumstances” before deciding whether it would be unjust to impose costs penalties on claimants who fail to beat offers made under part 36, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Litigants are not entitled to make a second application for relief from sanctions unless there has been a “material change in circumstances”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Tanir v Tanir [2015] EWHC 3363 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 508
‘CPR r 13.2 was in mandatory terms, so that where it was far from certain that the court had served on the defendant a claim form by post in accordance with CPR r 6.18(1), judgment in default had to be set aside.’
WLR Daily, 7th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal would not lightly interfere with a case management decision and would support robust and fair case management decisions by first instance judges to strike out, or to decline to strike out, claims under CPR r 3.4(2)(c). In a case in which the balance was a “fine” one, an appellate court should respect the balance struck by the first instance judge.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A part 36 offer made by a defendant with a counterclaim is not “automatically to be regarded as a claimant’s offer”, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 7th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The common law defence of tender before claim is a defence that, before the claimant commenced court proceedings, the defendant had unconditionally offered the amount due to the claimant.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th November 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In his monthly column, James Bickford Smith discusses the High Court’s decision in The Dorchester Group Limited t/a The Dorchester Collection v Kier Construction Limited [2015] EWHC 3051 (TCC) concerning an open offer of settlement.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th November 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘A regular issue that is being raised at MOJ Stage 3 hearings, particularly since the introduction of the 13th edition of the JC Guidelines: can parties make new offers in their Part B forms and benefit from the cost consequences of Part 36.29 for beating/matching them? This article aims to set out the relevant rules and paragraphs to determine this issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th November 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘This was a Court of Appeal hearing on an appeal on costs. The original case was the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of some £6,000 and interest. The landlord also claimed for physical damage to the property by the tenant amounting to some £20,000 and consequential loss of rent. The tenant agreed some £6,000 in rent arrears, but denied the property damage. The tenant counterclaimed for failure to repair the property and breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant also challenged the landlord’s identity as landlord and the interest rate claimed.’
Nearly Legal, 9th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Clarise Properties Ltd v Rees [2015] EWCA Civ 1118 (Lawtel/Westlaw only from what I can see) is an interesting* permission to appeal decision. It appears that devolution has caused an odd little difference in the test for permission to appeal from the UT(LC) depending on whether the case started in England or Wales.’
Nearly Legal, 5th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A claimant found to have brought a bogus personal injury claim – but then cleared of fraud in the Crown Court – can only face civil contempt proceedings if there is new evidence, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 4th November 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024