‘In this case comment, David Bridge and Jessica Foley, both solicitor-advocates within the CMS litigation & arbitration team, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this summer in the matter of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31, which concerned whether the rule against reflective loss bars creditors of a company from claiming directly against a third party for asset-stripping the company.’
UKSC Blog, 4th September 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This was the question the court was asked to answer in RSK Environmental Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 26th August 2020
‘In Episode 119 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Gideon Barth about secondary victim claims, and the recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.’
Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘The Cape v Dring litigation concerns an attempt by a non-party to obtain copies of the trial bundle used during a six-week asbestos trial involving Cape which settled before judgment in early 2017. At first instance the Master granted the non-party permission to have copies of all documents, including the trial bundle of 5000 pages of disclosure, referred to at the trial. The Supreme Court confirmed in July 2019 that the non-party was entitled to written submissions, witness statements and expert reports under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, but remitted the question of what, if any, documents in the trial bundle the non-party should obtain to the original trial judge. On 16 July 2020 Picken J considered that question and held that Mr Dring was not entitled to receive any other documents.’
Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020
‘The English High Court has refused to give access to court documents on the basis that doing so would not advance the principles of open justice.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The ban on conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in family cases should not be read across to third-party litigation funding, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The group whose bid to access a bundle from litigation involving an asbestos manufacturer led to a Supreme Court ruling on open justice has failed in its application for the documents.’
Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has ruled it was wrong to strike out secondary victim claims from daughters who witnessed their father die after he was allegedly victim of clinical negligence.’
Law Society's Gazette, 12th June 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The recent flurry of legal observers commenting on the eye-watering and disproportionate costs incurred in this case such that out of £630,000 liquid capital, £594,000 had been spent on costs has justifiably attracted much attention. There is however, within this case, an incredibly helpful analysis for practitioners as to when, and in what manner, the court can have regard to family support which may be available in the future for the parties.’
Broadway House Chambers, 10th June 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘It is proving to be a very modern divorce. Armies of lawyers and advisers; hundreds of millions of pounds at stake; priceless art; a superyacht; a key lieutenant switching sides; the son dragged into the proceedings by his mother. No wonder some involved have likened it to The War of the Roses, the dark Hollywood comedy about a feuding couple starring Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas.’
The Guardian, 10th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The new reality for litigation funders in the courts in England & Wales is that they must be prepared to pay a defendant’s costs in full if the funded claimant loses.’
Six Pump Court, 17th April 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘The High Court has ordered the claimants in a major group action to disclose details of both the damages-based agreement (DBA) and third-party funding arrangements they have entered into.’
Litigation Futures, 30th March 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In 2007 C’s father (XX) killed his wife, C’s mother. He was made the subject of a hospital order. He was treated by D1’s multidisciplinary team. In 2009 his care was transferred to Dr O, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. C took part in family therapy sessions through D2. There was a suspicion that XX had Huntington’s disease but he refused to undergo genetic testing. He did not want C or her sister to know. His patient confidentiality was respected by D1 and D2. About this time C became pregnant. In 2013 C tested positive for Huntington’s. C was accidentally informed that XX had tested positive.’
No. 5 Chambers, 10th March 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘Sitting at Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans took the path less trodden and ordered a consultant spinal surgeon, acting as the Claimant’s expert witness in clinical negligence proceedings, to pay £88,800 to cover the costs wasted as a result of his input.’
Parklane Plowden, 4th March 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘ABC v St George’s Healthcare Trust and others [2020] EWHC 455 (QB). The High Court has ruled that the health authorities owed a duty of care to the daughter of their patient who suffered from the hereditary neurodegenerative order Huntington’s Chorea, to inform her about his condition. But in the circumstances, Yip J concluded that the duty was not breached and that causation had not been established.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a litigation funder can be exposed to higher costs than those they committed to backing a claim in a ruling that will send shock-waves through the sector.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th February 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Arkin cap is not a binding rule and judges have the discretion to order commercial funders to pay more than they have spent on a case, the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark decision.’
Litigation Futures, 25th February 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘As all legal practitioners know, good experts win cases. Conversely, bad experts can not only lose cases, but sometimes they can cause a bad case to enter
or remain in existence, wasting time, effort and money. Such was the case in Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust, where, in a judgment that will understandably alarm the medico-legal world, the County Court decided that a third party costs order should be made against the Claimant’s expert witness, in the sum of £88,801.68.’
Hailsham Chambers, 21st February 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A circuit judge has made a “highly unusual” and large third-party costs order against a claimant’s medical expert witness, whose “improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct” doomed the case.
Litigation Futures, 14th February 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2020