‘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).’
Panopticon, 7th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Dominic Regan predicts the likely civil procedure developments for 2014.’
New Law Journal, 29th January 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Civil court litigants must comply with court orders or “face the consequences”, an expert has said, after the High Court barred a company from giving evidence about a particular issue at trial after it failed to exchange witness statements within a reasonable time.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Legal fees in family proceedings hit the headlines with Young v Young – the now infamous seven year divorce case which saw £6.5m spent on one side’s legal costs alone.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th January 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In XYZ v Various [2013] EWHC 3648, Mrs Justice Thirlwall is managing group litigation in which nearly 1000 women seek damages from companies running hospitals for supplying them with defective implants manufactured by the French company, PIP, for use in breast implant surgery. Some of the claimants also bring actions against the providers of credit cards pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1984 (as amended by the 2006 Act) and some bring actions against the surgeons who carried out the surgery. The total value of the claims is in the region of £13m plus costs on both sides. The court has held a number of case management hearings culminating finally in a timetable leading to trial in October 2014 on three issues in four sample cases in which Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd (“Transform”) is, effectively, the lead defendant.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘This is an important case on the question of the correct approach where there has been default in respect of a sanction imposed by the court under the new “post- Jackson” regime, both in terms of the appropriate structure of applications for relief against sanctions. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the deputy high court judge and refused to entertain a second application for relief against sanctions where a previous judge had ordered that the defence and counterclaim be struck out.
The history of litigation and orders is slightly complex but has to be understood.’
Sovereign Chambers, 20th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘In his monthly column, James Bickford Smith discusses Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 1624 in which the Court of Appeal, after its decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, took further eye-catching steps to impose the new approach to relief from sanctions.’
Littleton Chambers, 8th January 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In almost every litigated case the parties usually find themselves needing to vary the dates of some directions. This can be done by way of written agreement between the parties and is allowed by CPR 2.11.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘During the passage of the Bill that became the Defamation Act 2013, Parliament discussed procedural changes to assist with the implementation of the legislation and the policy underlying it. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has now made the rule changes. However, as these have not been as extensive as members of Parliament may have anticipated, I am issuing this statement to provide some clarification and reassurance to Parliament and others…’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 2nd January 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
MacLennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) plc [2013] EWHC 4044 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 509
‘The power to prohibit the calling of witnesses under CPR r 32.2(3) sat towards the more extreme end of the court’s powers and was a power to be considered after less intrusive measures had been considered and rejected.’
WLR Daily, 17th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The facts and consequences of Mitchell are now well known, if not notorious amongst those conducting civil ligation.’
Sovereign Chambers, 7th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘The questions raised by the Mitchell ruling, such as the effect on a part 36 offer of a budget being disallowed, are already emerging as the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision is felt. Barrister Barry Havenhand of Clerksroom has supplied Litigation Futures with details of one case where the failure to file a budget in sufficient time saw the defendant’s budget restricted to its court fees, as in Mitchell.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has issued guidance on how to serve late witness statements in certain circumstances without falling foul of the Mitchell ruling, after refusing relief from sanction when a party tried to do just that on the first day of trial.’
Litigtation Futures, 19th December 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The relationship between justice and procedure “has not changed so as to transform rules and rule compliance into trip wires”, the High Court said this week in the first significant post-Mitchell ruling where relief from sanctions was granted.’
Litigation Futures, 13th December 2013
Source: www.litigation.com
‘Our monthly summary of key costs-related court decisions.’
Litigation Futures, 9th December 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Smith v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWCA Civ 1585; [2013] WLR (D) 473
‘In order for the court to have jurisdiction to make an order under CPR r 31.16 for disclosure before proceedings had started, it was not a requirement that the applicant have an arguable case in those proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1537; [2013] WLR (D) 466
‘In the context of the court’s case management powers in respect of a party’s claim, the failure by the party to file a costs budget on time would not normally attract relief from the sanction imposed by CPR r 3.14 unless the default were trivial or there were a good reason for it.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ramifications of “Plebgate” rumble on, not merely in the corridors of Whitehall and “the Met.” Much more seriously (some would say) it has now impinged into the arena of the “Jackson Reforms” and sanctions for relief against failure to abide by the Civil Procedure Rules in general. Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Limited (citation above) took place in the context of costs budgeting and the failure to provide the necessary budget in time, but it is also an important case with wider implications concerning the approach of the court to failures to comply with orders or directions of the Court or procedures of the CPR post “Jackson”. Many practitioners will be alarmed by the result.’
Sovereign Chambers, 28th November 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024