Updates
-
NewsUpdate on legal practitioner keyworkers
Advocates and solicitors who work on imminent or ongoing court or tribunal hearings are included in the government’s list of key workers during the current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis.
-
NewsHMCTS announces court reform extension
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has announced a one-year extension of its court reform programme.
-
NewsShare your thoughts on HMCTS' court reforms
The Justice Select Committee has launched an inquiry into the access to justice implications of the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) court modernisation programme.
-
NewsLitigants in person
James Perry, Alison Kirby and Alastair Shaw, members of the Civil Litigation Section committee, discuss recent developments in the case of Barton v Wright Hassall.
-
AnalysisLitigants in person: the new hardline approach
Kerry Underwood explains the string of recent case law which suggests the courts are taking a much tougher approach to litigants in person.
-
AnalysisIs an expert needed? London Aviation Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland
The recently reported case of London Aviation Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] EWHC 1037 (Ch) decided that an expert was not ‘reasonably required’ because, on the facts of the case, an expert was unlikely to assist the judge.
-
FAQ
FAQ: Claim forms for orders extending time
In this issue the Law Society Library FAQ is on the topic of claim forms for orders extending time for registering charge and witness statement in support.
-
Analysis86th update to the CPR now in force - what's new?
The 86th update to the Civil Procedure Rules has been published, coming into effect on 3 October 2016. Cait Sweeney guides you through the key change you need to know about - the replacement of existing CPR 52 (appeals) with a new part 52.
-
AnalysisVisions of the future: the post-Briggs consultation analysed
On 15 September, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) opened its ‘Transforming our courts and tribunals’ consultation, which aims to put into effect many of the proposals put forward by Lord Justice Briggs in his Civil Courts Structure Review. It gives some useful insight into what the MoJ has in store ...
-
AnalysisBriggs' Review: the final verdict
Lord Justice Briggs - who will be speaking at our autumn conference on 29 September - has published the long-awaited final report on the Civil Courts Structure Review, making a series of recommendations intended to inform HMCTS’ current court modernisation programme. At 300 pages long, Gareth Raisbeck digests the details ...
-
AnalysisThe tough gets going – again?
Two years after Denton took the sting out of Mitchell’s tail, could the courts be taking a tougher approach again to missing deadlines? Not necessarily, says James Perry, but the decision in Oak Cash and Carry is a salutary reminder that missed deadlines are usually a sign of deeper problems ...
-
AnalysisWebb Resolutions Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2016] Ch Div (4 May 2016)
The court has held a claimant liable for a defendant’s costs of and incidental to an abandoned professional negligence claim, even though the claim form had not been served - good news for defendants aiming to recover costs incurred pre-action?
-
AnalysisMendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB)
Mr Justice Coulson has ruled that a claimant could recover trial advocacy fees under CPR 45 when a claim settled on the day of the hearing, before the trial was heard
-
News83rd update to the CPR now in force - what's new?
The 83rd update to the Civil Procedure Rules has been published, with the majority of the amendments coming into effect on 1 and 6 April 2016. Cait Sweeney guides you through the key changes you need to know about
-
AnalysisFamily Mosaic Home Ownership Ltd v Peer Real Estate Ltd [2016] EWHC 257 (Ch)
The High Court has given guidance on the transfer of existing cases to the Shorter Trials Scheme
-
AnalysisGreat news for claimants? Fixed costs trumped by part 36 offer
Lord Dyson has ruled that assessed costs should trump fixed costs where claimants secure more than they had offered to settle for, and said that parliament had not intended to create a scheme to penalise claimants when it had established a fixed costs regime
-
AnalysisSuh v Mace (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 4
Court of Appeal rules that litigants in persons can benefit from ‘without prejudice’ rule without knowing what it means
-
AnalysisKerins v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (unreported, 31 July 2015)
The court considered whether the conduct of the claimant’s solicitors had been unreasonable or improper within the meaning of CPR 44.11, conduct that included the intentional failure to disclose the existence of a CFA
-
AnalysisBritish Airways plc v Spencer (Trustees of the Airways Pensions Scheme) [2015] EWHC 2477
The High Court considers the meaning and purpose of CPR 35.1, and provides guidance on when expert evidence is ‘reasonably required’
-
AnalysisMichael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2015] EWCA Civ 774
Court of Appeal confirms that the principles set out in Mitchell have to be read in the light of Denton