PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT
In Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC dismissed the claimant’s application that forensic accountants give evidence at trial. The experts had basically agreed that there were issues of fact to…
“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK”: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN
In Stephen Herbert Hunt v Oceania Capital Reserves Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 837 (Ch) Master Brightwell refused the second and third defendants application for relief from sanctions in a case where the costs budget was served late. However it…
VARDY -v- ROONEY: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IN COSTS ASSESSMENT FAILS TO CROSS THE LINE
In Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh rejected the claimant’s arguments that the defendant’s solicitors had misconducted themselves improperly and that there should consequently be a disallowance of some of the costs claimed by the…
PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFERRES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS
In Thomas Barry & Anor v Denis Barry [2025] EWHC 819 (KB) Mr Justice Dexter Dias rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants should not receive an additional amount in circumstances where they had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The…
PROVING THINGS 258: GENERIC WITNESS STATEMENTS RARELY IMPRESS A COURT: CLAIM FOR £50,190.24 REDUCED TO £1,197: A CAR CRASH OF A CASE
In David Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company of Europe [2025] EWCC 13 District Judge Lumb rejected most of the claimant’s claim for damages following damage to his car. The claimant’s oral evidence differed greatly from his witness statement. These differences…
SPORTING INJURIES IN THE COURTS: WEBINAR 17TH APRIL 2025: SOME INTERESTING TOPICS TO TACKLE…
Injuries to those involved in sports are not unusual. The issues relating to whether injuries are the result of negligence are complex ones. This webinar looks at the law relating to sporting injuries and, importantly, at the practical issues that…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: NO IMPLIED DUTY ON A CLAIMANT TO TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS STILL AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS
I am grateful to barrister Anthony Reddiford for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Truman in Aston -v- Tew & Alwyn Insurance Company Ltd, a copy of which is available here. Aston -v- Tew It is a…
PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT
Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…
COST BITES 226: ARE THE COSTS OF DELEGATION RECOVERABLE? POTENTIALLY – BUT THERE IS A CAVEAT – IT MUST NOT LEAD TO INCREASED COSTS
It is prudent for litigators of every type to take a look at decisions made on the assessment of costs. The fundamental questions “am I going to get paid for doing this?” or “Is my client going to recover the…
ACCOMMODATION AND APPLIANCE CLAIMS: THE CASES SINCE SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: WEBINAR 15th APRIL 2025
Issues relating to accommodation costs and aids and appliances feature in many moderate to serious personal injury cases. There are relatively few cases where the principles governing damages are considered. This webinar looks at the principles and the practical steps…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”
In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ Kathryn Major (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) was severely critical of the medical evidence called by the local authority. That part of the…
LITIGATION “WHACK-A-MOLE” – THE MOVING TARGET AND POOR PLEADINGS – IN A CASE ABOUT ALLEGEDLY POOR PLEADINGS
We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Saini in Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB). This was a case alleging that the defendant barrister had pleaded a case badly. The claim was rejected. However it is…
DEFENDANT’S POINT ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM NOT ACCEPTED: THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS
The judgment of Fordham J in Baz v General Dental Council [2025] EWHC 643 (Admin) contained an interesting issue in relation to service of the claim form. The defendant conceded that the claim form had been properly placed in the…
COST BITES 225: A PEEK INSIDE THE BUDGETING PROCESS: “PROPORTIONALITY TRUMPS REASONABLENESS”
We get a rare chance to look inside the costs budgeting process in the judgment of Master Brightwell in Atlantic Ways Holding SA v Freetown Terminal Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 674 (Ch). The rationale behind each budgeting decision is set…
COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”
In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO) Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8. The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 5 : THE CLAIMANT CAN’T NOW ARGUE SOMETHING CONTRARY TO HIS OWN PLEADED CASE
We are looking at another case in which the pleadings played a significant part. In Daniel Maurice Wagner v Bright Station Ventures Management Limited [2025] EWHC 669 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting rejected an argument from the claimant that was contrary…
DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY: RECENT CASES AND LESSONS TO LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 8th APRIL 2025
Awards for pain and suffering are made in every personal injury case. However the law and principles relating to these awards are rarely considered by practitioners. This webinar takes a close look at recent awards to enable practitioners to know,…
PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:
In H&P Advisory Limited v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Limited (formerly Randgold Resources Limited) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch) Mr Simon Gleeson found that the experts for each party were of no assistance in assessing the value of the work done by…
APPLICATIONS TO ADJOURN A TRIAL BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH: APPLICATION REFUSED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DID NOT ADDRESS SOME KEY ISSUES
In Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of the ongoing trial. The defendant had produced medical evidence…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 4: A FAILURE BY A CLAIMANT TO ADEQUATELY PARTICULARISE ITS CASE
When you start looking for cases about pleadings it is surprising how issues in relation to statements of case keep popping up. We see it in the judgment of Jeremy Hyam KC in Kau Media Group Limited v Thomas Hart [2025] EWHC…
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XVI: THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO READ THE JUDGE’S BODY LANGUAGE
Many of the posts in this series revisit previous series on the judge’s view. This post looks at the recent case of Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB). The judge made certain observations when disallowing the evidence of a…
TIME FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A “SECOND APPEAL”: COURT REFUSES TO GRANT EXTENSION
For the second time this week we are looking at issues relating to extension of time and appeals. In Abbotsley Ltd v Pheasantland Ltd [2025] EWHC 654 (KB) HHJ Karen Walden-Smith provided a timely reminder that a party who wishes…
UPDATE TO PROFESSIONAL USER GUIDANCE FOR THE DAMAGES CLAIMS PORTAL: SEE THE NEW DOCUMENT HERE
The Professional User Guidance for the Damages Claim Portal has been updated this month. Anyone using the Portal is best advised to have the new guidance to hand. THE UPDATED GUIDANCE The document from HMCTS can be found here…
NOW HERE’S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT – WHO HAD CAPACITY
In David Forsyth v Craig Howson & Anor [2025] EWHC 653 (KB) HHJ Claire Evans (sitting as Judge of the High Court) refused an unusual application by the defendants. The claimant had capacity to litigate and yet the defendants sought an order…
CHANGE IN COURT FEES FROM 8th APRIL 2025: LINK TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION
An earlier post set out the changes to court fees that are coming into force on the 8th April 2025. The Practice Direction that brings those changes into force has now been passed. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The Court and…
THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER
In Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) [2025] EWHC 602 (Ch) Master Kaye refused the claimant’s application for a split trial. The judgment considers in detail the guidance from the authorities and the matters the court should take into account….
“A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY”: WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL
The judgment of Mr Justice Hayden in F (A Minor) (Permission To Appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 (Fam) highlights a trap for those seeking permission to appeal. The time for appealing runs from the date that the order was announced and…
PROVING DAMAGES – THE CLAIMANT LAWYER’S BASIC TASK: WEBINAR 19th MARCH 2025
The “Proving Things” series on this blog is now up to number 256. The vast majority of this series is, in fact, about not proving things. That is where litigants fail to bring sufficient (sometimes any) evidence to court to prove…
COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)
I sometimes have to remind people (and remind myself) that one of the aims of this series is to keep an eye on costs awards that are actually made at hearings at trial. This provides an insight into what is…
COST BITES 222: A “RETROSPECTIVE” CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Singh & Ors v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a retrospective conditional fee agreement was invalid. The Court was, to say the least, suspicious of argument that the receiving party’s solicitors…
ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT
In John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd [2025] EWHC 594 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that a party had breached the rules relating to the embargo on a draft…
AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE
I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here. It is a case…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES
There is a consideration of the principles relating to the use of expert evidence in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 526 (Ch). The judge rejected the claimants’…
SERIES OF 10 WEBINARS ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: AND YOU CAN BUY A “SEASON TICKET”
The APIL Damages Series is 10 webinars looking at key elements of law and practice relating to personal injury damages. The webinars can be bought and watched individually. APIL has a special offer for all 10, details available here. …
COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY…)
In Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 HHJ Peter Marquand refused a claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. The claimant had issued Part 8 proceedings but failed to serve the witness evidence and particulars with the proceedings by the rules. …
PREPARING BUNDLES: A FREE ONLINE TOOL THAT MAY WELL HELP: INTRODUCING “BUNTOOL”
The last few weeks have seen a number of cases where judges have been critical (if not despairing) at the quality of the the bundles used at trials and applications. My attention has been drawn to “BunTool” a free online…
HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
HM Courts and Tribunal Services have published two documents to help legal professionals issue and manage an online money claim. THE DOCUMENTS 1. Issue and online money claim as a legal professional 2. Manage and online money claim as…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: “THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS”
The judgment in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Price [2020] EWHC 3276 (Ch) was given in October 2020, but has only recently arrived on BAILII. It concerns late service of a Part 36 offer. This is an issue rarely considered…
“THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROBATE CLAIM IN THAT THE DECEASED SAYS SHE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE”: A CHAOTIC TRIAL WHERE NO-ONE SEEMS TO HAVE THE SAME PAGINATION IN THE BUNDLES: AND THATS NOT EVEN HALF OF THE PROBLEMS…
The past few weeks have led to a number of cases about bundles. My working theory about trial and application bundles is that problematic bundles often reflect a much deeper malaise in the case itself. Support for that theory can…
COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) Mr Justice Constable rejected the claimant’s argument that the successful defendant’s refusal to attend mediation should lead to a reduction in the defendant’s costs. The case…
IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIM TO SUCCEED: “LIES IN THE COURSE OF LITIGATION ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE COURT”: SOME VERY UNCLEAN HANDS…
We are looking again at the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Bains v Irshad & Anor [2025] EWHC 491 (Ch). This time about the consequences of telling lies to the court. The equitable doctrine that most lawyers remember best is the…
WHAT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BUNDLES? “HUGGER-MUGGER” BUNDLES, WITH CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS MISSING: THE “ABILITY PROPERLY TO TEST THE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER SIDE”
The judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Bains v Irshad & Anor [2025] EWHC 491 (Ch) contains much of interest (not least there are not many civil judgments which end with the judgment stating that, because of the claimant’s evidence,…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 2: YOU CAN’T ADVANCE CAUSES OF ACTION NOT PLEADED IN THE CLAIM FORM
Having determined to look more closely at cases where the statements of case are at issue cases seem to come forward in abundance. The failure of a claimant to plead a cause of action in a claim form was considered…
SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER 2025: WEBINAR 12th MARCH 2025
Few lawyers can afford to ignore the effect of social media, both in relation to their cases and their practice generally. In some cases social media entries can affect the outcome of trials. There are specific duties placed upon lawyers…
JUDGE DOES NOT ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN A PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: IT CONTAINED “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE” THAT “ATTEMPTS TO USURP MY ROLE IN A CASE”
In Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB) Mr Justice Saini disallowed the calling of a witness that the claimant planned to call in an action for professional negligence. The witness statement relied upon contained opinion and inadmissible commentary. …
THIS SKELETON ARGUMENT IS FAR TOO LONG, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES – AND ISN’T GOING TO BE ADMITTED
In Henderson & Jones Ltd & Ors v Grange Heating Services Ltd & Ors (COSTS) [2024] EWHC 3572 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused to admit a “skeleton” argument that was too long and did…
COST BITES 220: QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO CO-CLAIMANTS WHO DO NOT BRING A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN A CASE IS STRUCK OUT
In BB & Ors v Khayyat & Ors [2025] EWHC 443 (KB) Mr Justice Soole rejected an argument that claimants who had not brought an action for personal injury could have the benefit of QOCS protection. The fact that they…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 1: FAILURE TO SERVE A REPLY ALLEGING FORGERY LEADS TO JUDGMENT AT TRIAL BEING SET ASIDE
For some time now I have been meaning to write a series on the numerous issues that arise when cases are not pleaded properly. There are a catalogue of cases where the parties come to court, normally shortly before (sometimes…
PROVING THINGS 256: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AFTER FALLING FROM A HORSE: THE ANIMALS ACT CONSIDERED
This blog has looked at the judgment in Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB) several times in relation to procedural issues and assertions of dishonesty. However the case, ultimately, was about a claimant who was injured when she fell…
“A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY”: ATTEMPTS TO “REOPEN” ISSUES WHEN A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT ARE HARDLY EVER FRUITFUL – AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE
There are a number of cases on this blog where litigants have attempted to “reopen” issues when a draft judgment is sent out to the parties for editorial corrections. We have an example in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies…