Search Results for

  Another recent example of the courts’ more robust approach to costs (as to which, see also my earlier posting on Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd) is found in Kelly v Black Horse [2013] EWHC B17 (Costs). Kelly was a fully-contested PPI claim which the claimants won. The district judge ordered that the


Litigation solicitors up and down the country are no doubt assessing the implications of the latest procedural changes with an eye to their own risk management profile. Of particular importance has been the change to the provisions concerning relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The recent decision of Michael v Middleton [2013] EWHC 2881 (Ch)


Ford v Malaysian Airline System [2013] EWCA Civ 1163 (27 September The Claimant was travelling on the Defendant’s scheduled flight from Heathrow to Melbourne, via Kuala Lumpur. She fell asleep during the flight and woke up at 6am and went to the toilet. She found that she was unable to urinate, which she attributed to


 Many lawyers are no doubt wondering how the new costs rules, particularly those as to costs budgets, will affect litigation in the future. The recent decision of Mr Justice Coulson in the Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2923 (TCC) provides some helpful pointers.  The case, which was run under


The outgoing Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, lobbed a live grenade into the lap of one barrister in a Court of Appeal judgment on Monday, accusing Counsel concerned of “flagrant misconduct and alleged professional incompetence” in the opening sentence of the judgment.  Three men convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 appealed to the


It is just over 6 years since the run on the Northern Rock bank. It is getting too late for anyone bringing a professional negligence claim in respect of their pre-crash investment decisions to rely on the primary limitation periods. There is section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 of course. This week’s Estates Gazette


You're Unbelievable

Ever been tempted to apply for summary judgment on the basis that an opponent’s expert’s evidence is not credible? This is what happened in Corma Inc v Hegler Plastik GMBH [2013] EWHC 2820 (Pat). Depsite having read this Patent Court case I am still not quite sure how a device for producing a double-walled thermoplastic pipe


Our regular readers will recall that we recently blogged about the Legal Ombudsman’s interest in providing redress for clients of non-legal professionals. This is not the only area where LeO’s domain may expand. The Legal Services Consumer Panel reported last year that non-client third parties should have a right of redress from LeO. The Panel has


The Commencement Order bringing into force the abolition of civil liability for breach of duty under health and safety regulations has been made (see the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 3 Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013/2227). Section 69 of the 2013 Act, which repeals civil liability, will come into force on 1st


Pursuant to CPR 3.12 and 3.13, unless the Court orders otherwise all parties (unless they are litigants in person) in a multi-track case commenced after 1st April 2013 must file and exchange costs budgets. The date for doing so will either be prescribed by the Notice of Proposed Allocation served by the Court pursuant to CPR


Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars


Subscribe