O’Brien v Shorrock and another [2015] EWHC 1630 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 366
The obligation under paragraph 19.4 of the CPR Practice Direction 44, since amended, was to inform the other party, by the notice of funding, of the date when a conditional fee agreement with retrospective effect was made rather than the earlier date when it came into effect.
WLR Daily, 12th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A claim brought on behalf of two children hurt in an accident has thrown doubt on the use of success fees, and on the unintended consequences of scrapping legal aid in such cases.’
The Guardian, 21st August 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Mr Brown became a well-known figure in litigation circles when he sought to unseal the Will of Princess Margaret in the belief that it might reveal information showing him to be her illegitimate son. In the course of his unsuccessful litigation, it was revealed that there existed what had been described orally during the court proceedings as a “Practice Direction in respect of the handling of Royal Wills” (although there is dispute over precisely what form this document takes and whether it is really a Practice Direction at all), produced by the-then President of the Family Division following liaison with the Royal Household.’
Panopticon, 16th July 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
In re K (Children): [2015] EWCA Civ 543; [2015] WLR (D) 237
‘The Family Court had no power to order the Lord Chancellor to provide public funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Anecdotal evidence suggests that Defendants in failed personal injury claims are increasingly making use of the Court’s wasted costs powers in an attempt to recover costs from Claimants’ legal representatives. Often this is in cases where the Defence is either explicitly or implicitly one of fraud. In such cases the terms of the ATE insurance (if indeed any is held by the Claimant) are often such that the policy does not pay out. Thus, Defendants are sometimes left in the position of holding a costs order against a ‘man of straw’. To circumvent this problem it seems some Defendants are making costs applications against legal representatives directly, using the wasted costs jurisdiction. The recent case of Kagalovsky v Balmore Invest Ltd [2015] EWHC 1337 (QB)[1] provides a salutary reminder of the difficulties a party faces when seeking to persuade a Court to make a wasted costs order.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘CPR 63.20 (2) requires those bringing claims in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) including the small claims track to state whether they have complied with paragraph 7.1(1) and Annex A (paragraph 2) of the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct). If they don’t the defendant has an extra 28 days in which to file his or her defence under CPR 63.22 (3). But if you actually turn to the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct you will find that the old paragraph 7 and Annex A aren’t there any more.’
NIPC Law, 6th May 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Practice Note Regarding Chancery Fixed-End Trials.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 28th April 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Society of Lloyd’s v Noel [2015] EWHC 734 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 142
‘In considering whether “a party had persistently issued claims or made claims which are totally without merit” for the purpose of meeting the criteria for the making an extended civil restraint order in accordance with paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 3C supplementing CPR r 3.11, the court was entitled to have regard to all such claims and applications made by the litigant, including those made prior to the making of an earlier extended civil restraint order.’
WLR Daily, 20th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Advice mainly to beginners, but we can all learn.’
Zenith PI, 18th March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In the recent case of Re L (A Child) [2015] EWFC 1, the president of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, reminded practitioners of the importance of following Practice Direction 27A when preparing court bundles in care proceedings, and keeping their size under control. ‘
Park Square Barristers, 12th March 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘All Family practitioners should now be familiar with the case of, In the matter of L (A Child) 2015 EWFC 15 (26 February 2015) FPR 2010. In summary this is about Practice Direction 27a – Family Proceedings: Court Bundles (universal practice to be applied in the High Court and Family Court). It provides guidance on court bundles that should be provided to a court for a hearing.’
The World of Family Law (Garden Court Chambers), 18th March 2015
Source: www.gcfamily.wordpress.com
‘The past decade has seen a number of advances in the field of law. As part of our exclusive Oxford law event, Unlock Oxford Law, we have asked some of our expert authors to identify what developments they thought were most significant. With constant changes and developments occurring across all the different areas of law, this is a subject that is very much up for debate. Read on to see what our authors said, and to see if you agree.’
OUP Blog, 18th March 2015
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘A local authority is entitled to the costs protection conferred on claimants in Aarhus Convention claims, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Alexander Chandler, barrister at 1 King’s Bench Walk considers the Implications of the Court Bundles Practice Direction in the light of Mostyn J’s judgment in J v J [2014] EWHC 3654.’
Family Law Week, 20th November 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Manchester County Court’s designated District Judges for Cancer Asbestos and Terminal Illness (“CAT”) cases apply from the outset the Mesothelioma Claims Practice Direction to all asbestos-related claims, irrespective of whether they involve mesothelioma: and this appeal judgment supports this practice.’
Zenith PI Blog, 5th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘It was very difficult for the Court of Appeal to deal with the dispatch of its business if it was faced with excessively lengthy skeleton arguments. What was required was a careful and concise summary of the points that were intended to be addressed.’
WLR Daily, 13th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Senior President of Tribunals has amended the practice statement regarding the composition of panels in the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 17th October 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘With the 75th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules (coming into force 1 October 2014), amendments to Practice Direction 21 (Children and Protected Parties) address the inconsistencies between the rules and practice direction in respect of the material that must be served and filed in relation to child/protected party settlement claims.’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025