A second bite of the cherry: Can a claimant bring a fresh claim having failed to obtain relief from sanctions? – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In the brave new world created by the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, claimants whose claims have been struck out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order are honing in on second actions as a way of bringing their litigation back to life. The threatened slew of professional negligence suits post-Mitchell could be avoided if lawyers subject to a Mitchell strike-out are able to placate their clients by simply re-issuing proceedings against the defendant.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th March 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Shocking justice gap for disabled prisoners – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

‘It is Prison Service policy that prisons provide a fair and equal service to all prisoners, including to those who are disabled. The purpose of this policy is to make sure that the Prison Service meets its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). However, for many disabled prisoners, these obligations are not being met.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th April 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Rule committee sets the date for costs budgeting expansion – Litigation Futures

Posted March 27th, 2014 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news by tracey

‘The extended costs budgeting regime for all multi-track cases worth up to £10m will come into force on 22 April, it was confirmed today.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Relief from sanctions application is not a “free ride” for other side to oppose, judge warns – Litigation Futures

Posted March 27th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, sanctions by tracey

‘Parties opposing applications for relief from sanctions should not assume that they are going to get a “free costs ride” in opposing them, a High Court judge has warned.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court of Appeal clarifies law on expert evidence – Henderson Chambers

Posted March 26th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, expert witnesses, news by sally

‘On 13 March 2014 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Rogers & Rogers v Hoyle. The appeal deals with two significant issues that can arise in any area of civil practice: the status and admissibility of opinion evidence outside of CPR Part 35 and the extent of the long-standing rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, 13th March 2014

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

English civil court reforms “inconsistent, time-consuming and costly”, says Law Society – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 21st, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, Law Society, news, solicitors by sally

‘Civil courts in England and Wales are increasingly valuing “administration over access to justice” since wide-ranging reforms to procedures and costs came into force last year, the Law Society has claimed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 20th March 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Spiralling out of control: can Jackson reforms reign in family fees? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted March 20th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, divorce, family courts, fees, news by tracey

‘Despite the strictures of the Family Proceedings Rules and subsequent practice directions, disproportionate costs still seem to arise on an all too common basis.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 19th March 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2): [2014] UKSC 18;  [2014] WLR (D)  122

‘The test of capacity to conduct proceedings for the purpose of CPR Pt 21 was the capacity to conduct the claim or cause of action which the claimant in fact had, rather than the claim as formulated by her lawyers. A consent order based on the settlement of a claim by a claimant who lacked capacity and did not have a litigation friend was not valid even though the claimant was legally represented.’

WLR Daily, 12th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Supreme Court places protection of vulnerable parties ahead of need for finality in litigation – Litigation Futures

‘The policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is that protected parties need protection not only from themselves but also from their legal advisers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Kairos Shipping Ltd and another v Enka & Co LLC and others – WLR Daily

Kairos Shipping Ltd and another v Enka & Co LLC and others: [2014] EWCA Civ 217;   [2014] WLR (D)  113

‘It is in principle possible to constitute a limitation fund under the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, scheduled to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, by means of a guarantee in the form of a letter of undertaking provided by a protection and indemnity club.’

WLR Daily, 6th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Precedent H to be amended in CPR update but no news yet on costs management limit – Litigation Futures

Posted March 6th, 2014 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, time limits by tracey

‘The statement of truth to be used in verifying a costs budget is to be changed, the latest update to the Civil Procedure Rules has revealed – but there is no word as yet about whether the level at which the costs management exemption kicks in will be increased.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 6th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Summit Navigation Ltd and another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare SA and another – WLR Daily

Summit Navigation Ltd and another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare SA and another [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm); [2014] WLR (D) 104

‘All sanctions were not equal nor were they to be treated as equivalent to one another for the purposes of an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r 3.9.’

WLR Daily, 21st February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Rule committee set to introduce blanket £10m costs management exemption – Litigation Futures

Posted February 26th, 2014 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, practice directions by tracey

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) looks set to introduce an exemption from costs management for all civil cases that are worth in excess of £10m – even though Sir Rupert Jackson himself is opposed to any exceptions. Newly released papers from the 6 December meeting of the CPRC reveal that it fell into line with the joint recommendation of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, and the deputy head of civil justice, Lord Justice Richards.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 26th February 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Bingham Centre Review into Streamlining Judicial Review Published – Blackstone Chambers

Posted February 24th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, judicial review, news, reports, rule of law by sally

‘Last October the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law established a Review to consider and report on possible ways of improving judicial review procedures in the Administrative Court, to save and protect public funds, in a manner consistent with the rule of law.’

Full story

Blackstone Chambers, 19th February 2014

Source: www.blackstonechambers.com

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances – WLR Daily

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances [2014] EWCA 12; [2014] WLR (D) 86

‘Where a cyclist had been run down in France and brought proceedings in the English courts seeking damages for personal injury, the question whether there should be one single joint expert, or more than one expert pursuant to CPR Pt 35, was a matter of “evidence and procedure” within the meaning of article 1(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007. Therefore the question of which expert evidence the court should order fell to be determined in accordance with English and not French law.’

WLR Daily, 20th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

High Court sends out strong warning against ‘tactical’ use of Mitchell – Litigation Futures

‘The Mitchell ruling is not to be used as a tactical weapon, the High Court has warned litigators in a case where its opprobrium was reserved for the conduct of the party on the other side of the default.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 21st February 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Extensions of time for witness statements post Mitchell and Lloyd ~ Don’t be caught out – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted February 14th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, consent orders, news, time limits, witnesses by sally

‘The recent decision in MA A Lloyd & Sons Ltd v PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) provides that parties who agree to extend time for service of witness statements must also apply to the Court for an order by consent. A mere written agreement is not sufficient. In the post-Mitchell, post-Lloyd world, parties are increasingly unlikely to agree extensions of time. Tom Shepherd considers the decision in Lloyd and highlights some practical pointers which parties who need to make or respond to an application to extend time for witness statements can consider. He also explains why this decision leaves us with a few unresolved questions.’

Full story

11 Stone Buildings, February 2014

Source: www.11sb.com

Judiciary mulls allowing parties to agree time extensions between themselves – Litigation Futures

Posted February 14th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, news, practice directions, time limits by sally

‘The judiciary is considering a change to model directions that would allow parties to agree a 28-day extension to time limits without the need for court approval, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th February 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Linford Christie lawyers outpaced by Mitchell penalty – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted February 11th, 2014 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, time limits by tracey

‘Filing a costs budget even just a day late does not count as a “trivial” breach of rules, a county court has ruled.’

Full story

Law society’s Gazette, 11th February 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Use of disclosed documents – Panopticon

Posted February 10th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, closed material, disclosure, documents, injunctions, news by tracey

‘The important general principle is of course that a party to whom a document has been disclosed in litigation may use that document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed. There are, nonetheless, three significant exceptions to that principle, set out in CPR r31.22(1).’

Full story

Panopticon, 7th February 2014

Source: www.panopticonblog.com