CPR 35 CONSULTATION PAPER
|
|
- Marybeth Malone
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 12 July 2007 Item 9 CIVIL LITIGATION COMMITTEE 12 JULY 2007 Classification Public Purpose For decision CPR 35 CONSULTATION PAPER The Issues The Committee needs to decide whether it wishes to apply for additional resources to deal with a response to this consultation on CPR 35 from the Civil Justice Council Expert s Committee. The Civil Litigation Committee can alternatively elect to prepare a response themselves. Financial and Resourcing implications There will be financial and resourcing implications should the Committee wish to apply for additional funding to prepare a response to this. Equality and Diversity implications There are no equality and diversity implications. Consultation This paper was prepared for the Civil Litigation Committee. Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 2A Annex2B Letter from His Honour Judge Nic Madge Consultation paper Letter to consultees Responses to the letter on Single Joint Expert Guidance Policy Director Evlynne Gilvarry, Director of Representation and Legal Author Ben Arrowsmith, Committee Secretary Date of report 4 July
2 ANNEX 1 Harrow Crown Court, Hailsham Drive, Harrow, HA1 4TU His Honour Judge Nic Madge Introduction I am writing to you on behalf of the Civil Justice Council s Experts Committee which I chair. The Ministry of Justice (formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs) and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee are committed to keeping the Civil Procedure Rules under review. They have embarked on a systematic series of comprehensive reviews of key Parts of the CPR. The next Part to be reviewed will be Part 35 which as you are aware, deals with Experts and Assessors. The Ministry of Justice has asked the Experts Committee to consider what changes could be made to strengthen Part 35, its Practice Direction and the Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give evidence in civil claims. Before discussing these provisions in detail, and submitting our proposals to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, we have decided to carry out a consultation exercise. In view of this I would be very grateful if you could let us have your views and comments on the working of CPR35 and, in particular, your answers to the questions set out below by 31 July Please could you send your response to His Honour Judge Nic Madge Harrow Crown Court, Hailsham Drive, Harrow, HA1 4TU. Or nmadge@lix.compulink.co.uk It would be particularly helpful to have an electronic version. General 1. Do you consider that CPR Part 35, PD 35 and the Protocol are, in general, working satisfactorily? Apart from the areas covered below, are there any changes that you would like to see to CPR Part 35, PD 35 or the Protocol? Is there any need to vary the definition of expert in CPR 35.2? Single Joint Experts 2. Last year we consulted in relation to SJEs. After considering responses and further discussions we proposed an amendment to PD35. That 2
3 proposal is attached to this letter. The CPR Rules Committee decided to delay consideration of the proposed amendment pending the general review of CPR 35. Do you have any comments in relation to SJEs or the proposed amendment? Agenda 3. Agenda for experts meetings can play a significant role in experts meetings. It has been suggested that there are relatively few problems in agreeing and following agenda in cases involving construction and surveyors, but that there have been problems in agreeing and following agenda for meetings in medical cases. Do you agree? Are there any changes that you would like to see to CPR Part 35, PD 35 or the Protocol? Questions to experts 4. CPR 35.6 provides that written questions may be put to experts, but that they must be for the purpose only of clarification of the report. Is this criterion still appropriate? Are questions to experts being put in a disproportionate way, simply as a first bite of cross-examination? If they are, is this wrong? Alternatively, would a widening of the criterion be appropriate? Enforcement 5. A balance has to be struck between the need for compliance with orders and the CPRs on the one hand and flexibility, proportionality and justice on the other hand. Some people have argued that if judges took a stricter line when there has been non-compliance with an order or the CPRs (e.g. by refusing to allow a party to rely upon an expert s report), parties would be more likely to comply with orders. Do you agree that there is a problem? Are there any changes that you would like to see to CPR Part 35, PD 35 or the Protocol? Should there be a provision that an expert s report which does not comply with CPR 35 or PD 35 should not be admitted as evidence without the permission of a judge? Protocol 6. How is the Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give evidence in civil claims working? Do you consider that any amendments are needed? Low speed impact whip lash claims 7. Over the last year it has been said that there has been an increasing number of cases in which defendants insurers have argued that the claimant could not have suffered whip lash because of the low speed of the vehicles on impact. Do you consider that any changes to CPR Part 35, PD 35 or the Protocol are necessary as a result of this increase? Expert s statement of truth 8. Is there any need to vary the form of the expert s statement of truth? (PD35 para 2.4) I look forward to hearing from you. 3
4 ANNEX 2 Experts Committee The decision to allow the evidence of single or separate experts 23 rd January 2006 The Experts Committee of the Civil Justice Council includes a circuit judge, a district judge, a barrister representing the Bar Council, a solicitor nominated by the Law Society s Civil Litigation Committee, representatives from APIL, FOIL, the Expert Witness Institute the Academy of Experts and the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners together with employees of the Legal Services Commission and the DCA. All have significant experience of civil litigation involving the use of experts. We approach the subject from very different perspectives. We have discussed the apparent inconsistency of courts when deciding on whether to allow the evidence of single or separate experts at a number of meetings. Our discussions started with anecdotal evidence of inconsistency between different levels of judges and between judges in different parts of the country. It is inevitable that there are differences of approach. The Civil Procedure Rules give a discretion which is designed to be exercised flexibly. Different cases require different approaches. What may be proportionate in one case may be disproportionate in another case. However our members talked about uncertainty as to what was likely to be ordered because of differences of approach by judges and of some courts where separate experts would never be allowed in a particular discipline but other courts where they would inevitably be allowed in the same discipline. It was said that this results in some solicitors engaging in forum shopping. Notwithstanding decisions in Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382 and Peet v Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1703, it was felt that there was relatively little guidance from the Court of Appeal. Others said that the guidance given in those cases was not uniformly followed. At our meeting on 8th November 2005 we discussed a paper on the subject written by Mark Harvey, a solicitor with expertise in personal injury litigation and Robin Oppenheim, a barrister with experience in clinical negligence litigation. The paper included a proposed set of criteria which it was suggested should be considered by courts deciding when whether to appoint separate or single experts. These were drawn from existing case law in this area and were designed to improve the consistency of decision-making according to existing law and practice. 4
5 As a result of that discussion we consulted on a modified version of those criteria, asking three questions: 1. Do you agree that there are inconsistencies between different courts and different judges when giving permission to call expert evidence? 2. Would some guidance be helpful? 3. If you think that some guidance would be helpful, do you have any comments on our suggested considerations? A copy of the consultation letter is annexed. We received responses from FOIL, APIL, the London Solicitors Litigation Association, the Association of District Judges, the Clinical Disputes Forum, the Law Society, and a number of Specialist Bar Associations including the Technology and Construction Bar Association, the Personal Injury Bar Association, the London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association and Falcon Chambers. A summary of the responses is annexed to this paper. A majority of consultees felt that there was more inconsistency than is desirable. Several consultees indicated that they did not think that guidance would be helpful, but detailed consideration of a number of these responses indicated that the authors were in fact trying to go behind the Woolf reforms and re-argue the whole CPR approach to expert evidence. At our meeting on 12th January 2006, having regard to these responses, we concluded that it would be helpful for the Practice Direction to CPR Part 35 to be amended to include a number of non-exhaustive considerations that courts should take into account when deciding whether to give permission for the evidence of single or separate experts, based on existing practice and case law without seeking to modify established practice. Having regard to the responses of the consultees, we modified the criteria so that they take the form of a proposed amendment to PD 35 para 6 which we set out below. We ask that this be approved by the Civil Justice Council and sent to the Lord Chancellor with a request that it be submitted (with this brief paper and the summary of the consultation responses) for consideration by the CPR Rules Committee. Proposed amendment to PD35, para 6, by inserting before the existing material 6.1 When a party seeks permission to call an expert or put in evidence an expert s report, the party and the court shall consider whether or not it is appropriate for such evidence to be given by a single joint expert within the meaning of CPR Where a claim has been allocated to the small claims track or the fast track, there is a presumption that, if permission is given for expert evidence, it will only be given for evidence from one expert on a particular issue. 6.3 Where a claim has been allocated to the multi track, the court, when considering whether to give permission for the parties to call experts or put in 5
6 evidence experts reports from separate experts or single experts, shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular: a) The value of the claim and whether or not it is proportionate to have separate experts for each party on a particular issue with reference to the amount at stake and the importance to the parties and the complexity of the issue; b) Whether the instruction of a single expert is likely to assist the parties to resolve the issue more speedily and in a more cost-effective way than separately instructed experts; c) Whether expert evidence is to be given on an issue of liability (including causation) or quantum; d) Whether there is likely to be a range of expert opinion on which it may be difficult for a single joint expert to express an opinion, or whether the expert evidence falls within a substantially established area of knowledge which is likely to be the subject of agreement; e) Whether a party has already instructed his own expert on the issue in question and whether or not that was done in compliance with any relevant pre-action protocol; f) If one party has already instructed his own expert, whether questions put in accordance with CPR will resolve the need for the other party to have his own expert g) Whether the nature of the expert evidence required is such that questions put to a single expert may not conclusively deal with all issues that may require testing prior to trial; h) Whether the nature of the expert evidence required is such that a conference may be required with the expert and other witnesses which may make instruction of a single expert impractical; i) Whether there are any issues concerning legal professional privilege which make the instruction of a single expert impractical; and j) If a single expert is appointed, whether there a significant risk that a party will instruct his own shadow expert, and, if so, the implications for costs, the likelihood of resolution of the issue and the use of court resources. 6.4 [existing para 6] Nic Madge, Chair of CJC Experts Committee 23 January
7 ANNEX 2A Letter to consultees 16 th November 2005 As you are no doubt aware, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Among other things it keeps the civil justice system under review and refers proposals for changes in the civil justice system to the Lord Chancellor. The CJC has a number of committees of which one is the Experts Committee. The CJC Experts Committee is concerned that there appear to be inconsistencies between different courts and judges as to the appointment of single joint experts ( SJEs see CPR 35.7) and separate experts. There is anecdotal evidence that this results in solicitors issuing proceedings in particular courts where judges are known to have particular approaches to the question and to unnecessary wrangling between solicitors about the appointment of experts. To some extent differences in approach are inevitable because the CPRs are designed to be flexible, but in discussions, we have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful for more guidance to be given. Although it would be wrong to impose a straight jacket on courts and solicitors, we consider that it would be helpful for there to be some non-exhaustive considerations which courts should take into account when permission is given to call expert evidence. We have provisionally identified the following questions which are relevant to the instruction of experts and which are among the factors which should be taken into account:- Is the issue for which expert evidence is sought a liability or quantification of damages issue? Is the issue on which expert evidence is sought one on which there is likely to be a range of opinion which may be difficult for a SJE to express such a range of opinion which might be held on the issue in question by other experts? Is the issue on which expert evidence is sought one which falls within a substantially established area of knowledge where it is not necessary to sample a range of opinion and where such evidence is likely to be the subject of agreement? Has one of the parties or both parties instructed their own expert on the issue in question? Was this done in compliance with the relevant pre-action protocol? If one party has already instructed their own expert, will part 35 questions resolve the need for the other party to have their own expert? Is the nature of the expert evidence required such that Part 35 questions of a SJE may not conclusively deal with all issues that may require testing prior to trial? 7
8 Is the nature of the expert evidence required such that a conference may be required with the expert, lay and other expert witnesses which make single joint instruction of the expert in question impractical? Are there any issues concerning legal professional privilege which make single joint instruction of the expert in question impractical? If a SJE is appointed, is there a significant risk that one or other of the parties will instruct their own shadow expert? If so, what are the implications for costs, likelihood of resolution of the litigation and the use of court resources? Will the instruction of a SJE assist the parties to resolve the litigation more speedily and in a more cost-effective way than separately instructed experts? Is it proportionate to have separate experts for each party on the issue for which expert evidence is sought by reference to the amount at stake, importance of the issue to the parties and all the circumstances of the case? [see gloss on proportionality and small value claims in Layland v Fairview [2002] EWHC 1350 (Ch) at [29-31]] Before we consider the position further, we should be grateful for your views on the following questions:- 1. Do you agree that there are inconsistencies between different courts and different judges when giving permission to call expert evidence? 2. Would some guidance be helpful? 3. If you think that some guidance would be helpful, do you have any comments on our suggested considerations? It would be helpful if you could reply to this letter by 23 rd December You can either reply by at Monique.deletant@cjc.gsi.gov.uk or to the Civil Justice Council at the address above. Yours sincerely, HHJ Nic Madge Chair, Experts Committee 8
9 ANNEX 2B Responses to the letter on Single Joint Expert Guidance HHJ Nic Madge, Chair of the Experts committee, wrote to nine representative bodies in November, to ask their views on the following questions. 4. Do you agree that there are inconsistencies between different courts and different judges when giving permission to call expert evidence? 5. Would some guidance be helpful? 6. If you think that some guidance would be helpful, do you have any comments on our suggested considerations? Of the bodies that were contacted the following responded: APIL FOIL Bar Council (in the form of individual committee submissions) Association of District Judges Clinical Disputes Forum Law Society I have not yet received responses from MASS, Council of Circuit Judges and LSLA. Views: There are a wide range of views and the responses to the three questions have been summarised in table format below. Suggestions seem to differ between defendant and claimant solicitors with both stating that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the opposing side. 9
10 Body Question 1: Are there inconsistencies? Question 2: Would guidance be Question 3: Suggestions? helpful? APIL Yes No need for further guidance The protocol could form the basis of a template or pro forma to be considered by the judge prior to appointment of an expert. Association of District Judges Not aware of any Guidance is not necessary First consideration should be whether any expert evidence is necessary Bar Council: Falcon Chambers Yes Yes Please see response for further suggestions Bar Council: London Common Law and Commercial Bar Assoc Not aware of any - but main divergence in QB Masters Not clear Primary considerations are case value, importance of disputed issue and the subject matter of expert evidence. Bar Council: Personal Injury Bar Assoc Does not appear to be great inconsistency between trial centres Discrepancy between level of judge No need for further guidance Bar Council: Technology and Construction Bar Assoc Not surprised inconsistencies exist although approach is different in TCC. Guidance would seem to be helpful List quite long, could it be shortened. Worked case studies where SJE s might be appropriate? CDF There are inconsistencies General guidance would be helpful Concern that there should not be further constraint in use of experts - please see his letter for individual suggestions FOIL Yes Yes although not necessarily helpful if relates to expert evidence alone Could suggest when discarded evidence could be disclosed. - please see response for further suggestions Law Society Yes Yes The criteria stated could be acceptable provided they are supportive of the overriding objective. Costs/court availability should not be perceived as a pretext for limiting or forbidding expert evidence. Detailed comments: 10
11 APIL: Current principles and guidance in CPR and case precedents should be restated. Proportionality should be based on what is value, complexity and importance of the issue Defendants granted leave to seek an additional expert report without specifying any objections to the first belief that similar requests from claimants not granted. Bar Council; Should be no presumption in favour of SJE rather than separate expert witnesses Only suitable where claim is of low value, differences between parties not great or where issue of expert evidence is minor element of claim Equality of arms Should assume parties realise cost and time implications of course Court should be cautious where issue is about liability Established area of knowledge is not a helpful guideline Experts who have been instructed should be retained Compliance with pre action protocol not a material consideration. Never fair to prevent one party from calling own expert once other party has already instructed an expert. Part 35 questions would rarely be conclusive in dealing with issues. Conference with an expert should militate against appointment of SJE Parties deprived of opportunity of having a candid and frank exchange in present of expert where a SJE is appointed. Court cannot prevent a shadow expert being appointed. Implication of costs is important but court time saving should not be placed above fair resolution of claim. CDF Highly unlikely there will ever be a place of SJE in deciding liability issues. Close scrutiny needed if a SJE is to be used may not give full range of opinions How is lawyer to know whether issues fall within a substantially established area of knowledge? The use of a SJE in a privileged client conference is impossible. It is difficult to discuss a range of opinions with a SJE as they may reveal concerns to the opposing side about weaknesses and strengths in a case. Shadow experts on the defence side are almost inevitable. Do not believe that SJE are always cost effective. Concerned that there should not be a further constraint in the use of experts. FOIL No mention of issues of causation explicitly in document. 11
12 Guidance could help level the playing field and suggest when discarded evidence should be disclosed. Discretion for each case Stepped approach Continuity of case management with same DJ used Local practice directions still seem to remain TCC management of expert evidence is preferable to county court. Consideration should be given to: position pre protocol if expert has been nominated by default because of protocol breach, defendant should not be penalised. Complexity and value should be taken into consideration Experts discipline needs to be considered eg: psychologist or psychiatrist At allocation parties could provide better information in relation to need for alternative expert evidence. Even lower value claims sometimes require alternative expert evidence to avoid unreasonable settlements Disconnection between Part 35 and protocol. The process under the PAP by which an expert is chosen by the claimant and the defendant does not object and /or agree does not result in SJE. Whether orders by judges should name the discipline or both the expert and the discipline. Monique Deletant 9 th November
General Pre-Action Protocol. Practice Direction on Protocols
General Pre-Action Protocol and Practice Direction on Protocols Response to Consultation [8 October 2008] 1 General Pre-Action Protocol and Practice Direction on Protocols Response to consultation carried
More informationConsultation. Civil Procedure Rules: Costs Capping Orders
Consultation Civil Procedure Rules: Costs Capping Orders Response of Browne Jacobson LLP 22 October 2008 Contents Contents... 1 Introduction... 2 Browne Jacobson LLP... 2 Interest in the Consultation...
More informationThe Structure of Self-employed Practice Consultation paper
The Structure of Self-employed Practice Consultation paper August 2009 1 BAR STANDARDS BOARD The Structure of Self-employed Practice Consultation Paper Introduction 1. In February 2008 the Bar Standards
More informationRevised and updated pre-action protocols came into effect on 6 April 2015 with little advance warning.
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOLS UPDATE Introduction Revised and updated pre-action protocols came into effect on 6 April 2015 with little advance warning. The terms of the updated protocols are important for practitioners,
More informationBefore : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS with MASTER GORDON SAKER (Senior Costs Judge) sitting as an Assessor
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT AND FAMILY COURT District Judge Campbell A89YJ009 Before : Case No: A2/2015/1787
More informationPractice direction and pre-action protocol for Clinical Negligence claims in the High Court
26 May 2010 Mrs R Johnston Secretary to the Civil Justice Reform Committee Office of the Lord Chief Justice Royal Courts of Justice Chichester Street Belfast BT1 3JF Practice direction and pre-action protocol
More informationThe Current Regime. Unreasonable Behaviour
Lord Justice Jackson s Supplemental Report into Civil Litigation Costs After many months of work, Lord Justice Jackson s report on fixed costs is now available. This briefing considers his proposals and
More informationThe Pre-Action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims is approved by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims is approved by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice. The Right Honourable Sir Terence Etherton Master of the Rolls and Head of
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE JACKSON LORD JUSTICE LINDBLOM. BRADFORD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST Respondent
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1001 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOSNELL) A2/2015/0840 Royal Courts
More informationFactsheet 48: Answering Written Questions
Factsheet 48: Answering Written Questions Last reviewed: April 2018 Official guidance relating to expert witnesses answering written questions is offered in both the civil and family arenas (see below).
More information1.1 Explain when it is necessary and appropriate to make an interim application to the court
Title Tactics and costs in Commercial Litigation Level 4 Credit value 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the procedures for making an interim application to the court Assessment criteria
More informationFactsheet 35: CPR35 Experts and Assessors: the Rules and Practice Direction
Factsheet 35: CPR35 Experts and Assessors: the Rules and Practice Direction When the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, appointed Lord Woolf to conduct an inquiry into the civil justice system in England
More informationLORD JUSTICE JACKSON S REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION COSTS FINAL REPORT. Summary of Recommendations
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON S REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION COSTS Recommendations: Executive Summary FINAL REPORT Summary of Recommendations Lord Justice Jackson s report contained an executive summary of his recommendations
More informationPRE-ACTION CONDUCT PRACTICE DIRECTION
PRACTICE DIRECTION PRE-ACTION CONDUCT PRACTICE DIRECTION PRE-ACTION CONDUCT SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1. AIMS 1.1 The aims of this Practice Direction are to (1) enable parties to settle the issue between
More informationA response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers December 2017
Civil Justice Council ADR and Civil Justice A response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers December 2017 Page 1 of 10 The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) is a not-for-profit organisation
More information[Paper prepared for IBA Conference in Prague September 2005] Mediation The framework in England and Wales
jonlang.com jl@jonlang.com Mediation The framework in England and Wales Mediator Introduction On 26 April 1999, the conduct of civil litigation was significantly changed with the introduction of the Civil
More informationCuthbert v Gair (t/a The Bowes Manor Equestrian Centre) [2008] APP.L.R. 09/03
JUDGMENT : Master Haworth : Costs Court. 3 rd September 2008 1. This is an appeal pursuant to CPR Rule 47.20 from a decision of Costs Officer Martin in relation to a detailed assessment which took place
More informationSally Anne Hyde v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Contents Sally Anne Hyde v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1 Kai Surrey (by his Mother and Litigation Friend Amy Surrey) v- Barnett & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 5 Nirjalmit Mehmi v- Mr
More informationPrivately Funded Civil Litigation CFAs and DBAs Frequently Asked Questions
Privately Funded Civil Litigation CFAs and DBAs Frequently Asked Questions Updated October 2017 The Bar Council frequently receives enquiries from barristers and clerks in relation to Conditional Fee Agreements
More informationPre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence
Page 1 of 7 Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL THIS PROTOCOL MERGES THE TWO PROTOCOLS PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED BY THE SOLICITORS INDEMNITY FUND (SIF)
More informationRTA Post Jackson How to deal with them 3 months on what have we learned?
www.clerksroom.com Administration: Equity House Blackbrook Park Avenue Taunton Somerset TA1 2PX DX: 97188 Taunton Blackbrook T: 0845 083 3000 F: 0845 083 3001 mail@clerksroom.com www.clerksroom.com RTA
More informationGuide: An Introduction to Litigation
Guide: An Introduction to Litigation Matthew Purcell, Head of Dispute Resolution Saunders Law Solicitors The aim of this guide This guide is designed to provide an outline of how to resolve a commercial
More informationImport VAT VAT input tax claim application to Tribunal made out of time - should Tribunal allow to proceed yes
[14] UKFTT 760 (TC) TC03880 Appeal number: TC/13/06459, TC/13/06460 & TC/13/06462 Import VAT VAT input tax claim application to Tribunal made out of time - should Tribunal allow to proceed yes FIRST-TIER
More informationModel Report for Experts
Model Report for Experts Report of your name xxxxxxxx v xxxxxxxx Title of the action xxxxxxxx Court reference number Model Report Final report of your name for the name of the court Dated Specialist field:
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote:
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote: 4.2 I recommend that: (i) There should be a serious campaign (a) to ensure that all litigation lawyers and judges
More informationGuidance note: Instructing experts in applications for a financial order
2016 Guidance note: Instructing experts in applications for a financial order This Guidance was reviewed in September 2016. The law or procedure may have changed since that time and members should check
More informationFOR USE AFTER 1 NOVEMBER
APIL / PIBA 6 STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS POSTED ON THE APIL AND PIBA WEBSITES AND TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR USE AFTER 1 NOVEMBER 2005 INDEX
More informationFactsheet 27: Expert Reports: Requirements and Characteristics
Factsheet 27: Expert Reports: Requirements and Characteristics Last reviewed: April 2018 In the context of litigation it is important to distinguish between two kinds of expert report: those commissioned
More informationWHAT IS A CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS REPORT AND WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS REPORTS BACK TO BASICS WHAT IS A CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS REPORT AND WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS? The purpose of damages awarded in personal injury/clinical negligence
More informationPart 18 Questions in RTA Cases Where Fraud is Alleged. By Deborah Tompkinson Clerksroom August 2012
Part 18 Questions in RTA Cases Where Fraud is Alleged By Deborah Tompkinson Clerksroom August 2012 Telephone 0845 083 3000 or go to www.clerksroom.com 1 Introduction If you have got this far, then you
More informationIn cases where there is no Protocol in place then parties are expected to abide by the guidelines set down in Section III of the PDPAC and Annex A.
LEVEL 6 UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2011 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students
More informationSTANDARD CFA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL
STANDARD CFA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR USE AFTER 31 JANUARY 2013 PLEASE NOTE: THESE TERMS WILL
More informationSuggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall
Suggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall Version 2 (27/6/02) Introductory note These directions are based on orders that have been made and obeyed;
More informationPractice Direction 9A Application for a Financial Remedy. Introduction. Pre-application protocol. Costs. Procedure before the first appointment
Practice Direction 9A Application for a Financial Remedy This Practice Direction supplements FPR Part 9 Introduction 1.1 Part 9 of the Family Procedure Rules sets out the procedure applicable to the financial
More informationSENIOR COUNSEL PROTOCOL As at 16 May 2013.
SENIOR COUNSEL PROTOCOL As at 16 May 2013. The principles governing the selection and appointment of those to be designated as Senior Counsel by the President of the Bar Association are as follows: 1.
More informationCourt of Appeal rules that profit costs are due under CFA taken out whilst legal aid funding was in place
Court of Appeal rules that profit costs are due under CFA taken out whilst legal aid funding was in place Hyde v. Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 399 Article by David Bowden Executive
More informationGuide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track
Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track 1. General 1.1. Introduction This Guide applies to the small claims track within the Patents County Court (PCC). It is written for all users of the
More informationJudicial Review and Pre-permission Costs Karen Ashton and Anne McMurdie Public Law Solicitors The Public Law and Judicial Review North Conference 2014
Judicial Review and Pre-permission Costs Karen Ashton and Anne McMurdie Public Law Solicitors The Public Law and Judicial Review North Conference 2014 17 July 2014 Introduction 1. In this session we examine
More informationThe Planning Court comes into being. Richard Harwood OBE QC
The Planning Court comes into being Richard Harwood OBE QC The Planning Court will come into existence on 6 th April 2014 and some of the detail of its operation is now known. For the most part the procedures
More informationThe Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2013 No. 262 (L. 1) SENIOR COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COUNTY COURTS, ENGLAND AND WALES The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 Made - - - - 31st January 2013 Laid before Parliament
More informationBefore : HHJ WORSTER Between : - and -
IN THE BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT Case No: 3YK 77641 App Ref: BM30181A The Birmingham Civil Justice Centre, The Priory Courts, 33, Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS Before : HHJ WORSTER - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationClinical Negligence: Following Investigation
Clinical Negligence: Following Investigation 2 Your guide to Clinical Negligence: Following Investigation About Us From protecting your family legacy to securing your business future, we work tirelessly
More informationDefence and Counterclaim Training. By Andrew Mckie Barrister Clerksroom.
Defence and Counterclaim Training. By Andrew Mckie Barrister Clerksroom Email andrewmckie@btinternet.com/ mckie@clerksroom.com Telephone Mobile: 07739 964012 Office: 0845 083 3000 Website www.clerksroom.com
More informationDisclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority
Disclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority Julie Norris A. Introduction The rules of most professional disciplinary bodies are silent as to the duties and responsibilities vested in the regulatory
More informationMISS MERCEL HISLOP. Claimant/Appellent. and MISS LAURA PERDE JUDGMENT
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Claim No: A27YP399 HHJ Walden-Smith Between: MISS MERCEL HISLOP Claimant/Appellent and MISS LAURA PERDE Defendant/Respondent JUDGMENT 1. This is the judgment in the
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JUNE 2013
Note to Candidates and Tutors: LEVEL 6 - UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JUNE 2013 The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More informationALL CHANGE! THE NEW TRIBUNALS
ALL CHANGE! THE NEW TRIBUNALS A paper for Property Litigation Association Autumn Training Day on Thursday, 7 th November 2013 by Judge Siobhan McGrath President, First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
More informationA White Book Service
ISSUE 6/99 JUNE 25, 1999 A White Book Service Update on CPR Practice Directions Applications under CPR Schedule rules Directors Disqualification Proceedings Application for judicial review Stop press PR
More informationBC LEGAL. An Express Guide to Time Limits Under the Civil Procedure Rules Current as of 1st July 2015
BC BC LEGAL B R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y An Express Guide to s Under the Civil Procedure Rules Current as of 1st July 2015 This is a guide to the time limits under the Civil Procedure Rules that may be
More informationASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN THE BRAVE NEW WORLD EIGHTH LECTURE BY LORD JUSTICE JACKSON IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN THE BRAVE NEW WORLD EIGHTH LECTURE BY LORD JUSTICE JACKSON IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME KPMG FORENSIC S LEEDS LAW LECTURE 2012 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The text of this lecture is
More informationResponse of Property Litigation Association to Chancery Modernisation Review
Response of Property Litigation Association to Chancery Modernisation Review The Property Litigation Association ("PLA") represents 1,200 members. Members spend at least 50% of their time working on Property
More informationSECOND EDITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT GUIDE
SECOND EDITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT GUIDE (tccguidefirstrevision) (issued 3 rd October 2005, revised with effect from1 st October 2007) INDEX Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
More informationCourt of Appeal rules that already incurred costs in approved costs budget can be challenged in later assessment proceedings
Court of Appeal rules that already incurred costs in approved costs budget can be challenged in later assessment Harrison v. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA 792 Article
More informationDirections questionnaire (Fast track and Multi-track)
Directions questionnaire (Fast track and Multi-track) In the Claim. To be completed by, or on behalf of, who is [1 st ][2 nd ][3 rd ][ ][Claimant][Defendant][Part 20 claimant] in this claim You should
More informationBefore: HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOSNELL Between: ATV Automotive & Industrial Components (UK) Ltd (3)
IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Case No: D08YX820 The Combined Court Centre, Oxford Row, Leeds Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOSNELL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Date: 2 July 2018 Roy Richardson
More informationLEGAL ISSUES IN ARBITRATIONS - WHEN AND HOW TO TAKE LEGAL ADVICE
LEGAL ISSUES IN ARBITRATIONS - WHEN AND HOW TO TAKE LEGAL ADVICE A paper for the Rural Arbix conference on 15 October 2015 1. The options 1. If a legal issue comes up in an arbitration, there are five
More informationEvery Loser Wins: Costs Sanctions Following An Unreasonable Failure To Mediate
Every Loser Wins: Costs Sanctions Following An Unreasonable Failure To Mediate Benjamin Handy, St John s Chambers Published on 27th February, 2015 St John s barrister and mediator Ben Handy considers the
More informationTrustee Exemption Clauses Executive Summary
Trustee Exemption Clauses Executive Summary 19 July 2006 TRUSTEE EXEMPTION CLAUSES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND 1.1 The Law Commission s project on trustee exemption clauses arose out of the passage through
More informationRe Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd)
Page 1 Judgments Re Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd) [2014] Lexis Citation 259 Chancery Division, Companies
More informationGuidance on Conducting Litigation
CURRENT GUIDANCE Guidance on Conducting Litigation Introduction 1. This guidance document is for barristers, users of barristers services and others who wish to understand: the BSB s view on the activities
More informationCriminal Justice: Working Together
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Lord Chancellor s Department Crown Prosecution Service Home Office Criminal Justice: Working Together Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 29 November
More informationBefore: MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3313 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/7435/2011 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 13/12/2011
More informationBefore : HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS Between : - and -
IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT Case No: 2YJ60324 1, Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ Date: 29/11/2012 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : MRS THAZEER
More informationLIMITATION running the defence
LIMITATION running the defence Oliver Moore, Guildhall Chambers 9 th June 2010 SECTION 11 (4) LIMITATION ACT 1980 the period applicable is three years from (a) date on which cause of action accrued; or
More informationLegal Services Act 2007 SRA (Disciplinary Procedure) Rules EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SRA BOARD 15 January 2010 Public Item 6 CLASSIFICATION PUBLIC Summary Legal Services Act 2007 SRA (Disciplinary Procedure) Rules EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This paper invites the SRA Board to decide on the appropriate
More informationWe would welcome responses to the following questions set out in the consultation paper. You can return this questionnaire by to
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in the consultation paper. You can return this questionnaire by email to defamation@justice.gsi.gov.uk or in hard copy to Paul Norris, Ministry
More informationThe rules and background to fundamental dishonesty Ben Handy, St John s Chambers
The rules and background to fundamental dishonesty Ben Handy, St John s Chambers Published on 3 rd February 2016 What is fundamental dishonesty? Simply, dishonesty that is fundamental! It is not defined
More informationEmployment Special Interest Group
Employment law: the convenient jurisdiction to bring equal pay claims - the High Court or County Court on the one hand or the Employment Tribunal on the other hand? Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. On 24
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS and LORD JUSTICE FLAUX Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 355 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM CARDIFF CIVIL AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTRE District Judge T M Phillips b44ym322 Before : Case No: A2/2016/1422
More informationFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL S LEGAL ADVICE ON THE IRAQ MILITARY INTERVENTION ADVICE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL S LEGAL ADVICE ON THE IRAQ MILITARY INTERVENTION ADVICE 1. The legal justification for the Government s decision to participate in military action
More informationA response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 189 The Illegality Defence A response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers April 009 The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) was formed by claimant
More informationGENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS PART 44 PART 44 Contents of this Part Rule 44.1 Rule 44.2 Rule 44.3 Rule 44.3A Rule 44.3B Rule 44.3C Rule 44.4 Rule 44.5 Rule 44.6 Rule 44.7 Rule 44.8 Rule 44.9 Rule 44.10 Rule
More informationFactsheet 01: Civil Litigation and the Expert Witness
Factsheet 01: Civil Litigation and the Expert Witness Last reviewed: April 2018 In all developed systems of law the evidence of expert witnesses can be crucial to the outcome of a dispute. Nowhere is this
More informationRe: Dr Jonathan Richard Ashton v GMC [2013] EWHC 943 Admin
Appeals Circular A11/13 14 06 2013 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Investigation Committee Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations
More informationJUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE Zahra Al-Rikabi Brick Court Chambers 13 October 2014 The Spectator, 8 June 2013 Judicial Review proposals for reform 13 December 2012 Reduced time limits Planning six weeks
More informationGeneral Pre-Action Protocol. The Advice Services Alliance s response to the Lord Chancellor s Department s consultation paper
advice services alliance courts & tribunals policy response General Pre-Action Protocol The Advice Services Alliance s response to the Lord Chancellor s Department s consultation paper ASA January 2002
More informationInterim relief and urgent applications and the post permission stage
Interim relief and urgent applications and the post permission stage Hannah Gibbs Summary - JR litigation takes time - Interim relief ensures that a claim is not rendered academic by the passage of time.
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE DAVIS LADY JUSTICE SHARP and LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 2097 Case No: A2/2016/2351 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE
More informationPre-reference Protocol for Compulsory Purchase Compensation Claims
Discussion Paper Pre-reference Protocol for Compulsory Purchase Compensation Claims Introduction Since the changes brought about by the amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in attitudes to litigation,
More informationParty Wall Appeals lessons from the Rolls Building case. John de Waal QC
Party Wall Appeals lessons from the Rolls Building case John de Waal QC Introduction Section 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 ( the Act ) provides a now well-known and established mechanism for resolving
More informationEnforcement of Judgements: Orders for Sale. Jonathan Owen
Enforcement of Judgements: Orders for Sale Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. The Practice Direction to Part 70 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (hereafter the CPR ) sets out the methods of enforcing money
More informationFORAN v SECRET SURGERY LTD & ORS [2016] EWHC 1029
Mrs Justice Cox: Introduction FORAN v SECRET SURGERY LTD & ORS [2016] EWHC 1029 1. In this appeal, brought by permission of Stewart J, the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants are challenging the order
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2016
Note to Candidates and Tutors: LEVEL 6 - UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2016 The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More informationBefore: THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF GUDANAVICIENE) - and - IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 352 Case No: C1/2015/0848 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT ADMINISTRATIVE COURT HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER (sitting as a High
More informationLECTURE BY LORD JUSTICE JACKSON AT THE LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE COMMERCIAL BAR ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA on 29 th JUNE 2016 CONTENTS
CONCURRENT EXPERT EVIDENCE A GIFT FROM AUSTRALIA (concurrent) LECTURE BY LORD JUSTICE JACKSON AT THE LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE COMMERCIAL BAR ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA on 29 th JUNE 2016 CONTENTS 1. Introduction
More informationArticle by David Bowden. Dr Brian May & Anita Dobson v. Wavell Group Limited & Dr Farid Bizzari Claim Number: A02CL398
Appeal judge allows 75k legal costs to Anita Dobson and Queen s Brian May for nuisance caused by their neighbour s Kensington super basement construction Dr Brian May & Anita Dobson v. Wavell Group Limited
More informationTHIS PRACTICE DIRECTION SUPPLEMENTS CPR PARTS 43 TO 48
PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 43 PRACTICE DIRECTION ABOUT COSTS THIS PRACTICE DIRECTION SUPPLEMENTS CPR PARTS 43 TO 48. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION. SECTION 2 SCOPE OF COSTS RULES AND DEFINITIONS. SECTION 3 MODEL
More informationBar Council response to The Cab Rank Rule: Standard contractual terms and the list of defaulting solicitors consultation paper
Bar Council response to The Cab Rank Rule: Standard contractual terms and the list of defaulting solicitors consultation paper 1. This is the response of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales
More informationThe Essential Toolkit for Junior Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence Lawyers
The Essential Toolkit for Junior Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence Lawyers DATE: Tuesday, 1 May 2018 TIME: VENUE: 1.00 pm - 5.20 pm, 101 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6PU After the success of and fantastic
More informationSant'Anna Legal Studies
Sant'Anna Legal Studies STALS Research Paper n. 9/2008 Sir Robert Carnwath Constitutional Revolution in the English Legal system Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies Department of Law http://stals.sssup.it
More informationGENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 44 DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART 44 GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS SECTION 7 SOLICITOR S DUTY TO NOTIFY CLIENT: RULE 44.2 7.1 For the purposes of rule 44.2 client includes a party for
More informationJACKSON IN PRACTICE - the new régime for civil litigation costs
JACKSON IN PRACTICE - the new régime for civil litigation costs A paper for Property Litigation Association Autumn Training Day on Thursday, 7 th November 2013 by Her Honour Judge Karen Walden-Smith Central
More informationGENERAL PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL
GENERAL PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL CONTENTS 1 Scope 2 Aims 3 Overview 4 Time limits in this Pre-Action Protocol 5 Information about funding arrangements 6 Alternative dispute resolution 7 Steps to take before
More informationBEFORE: MR REGISTRAR JONES DAVID BROWN. - and - (1) BCA TRADING LIMITED (2) ROBERT FELTHAM (3) TRADEOUTS LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Case No: CR-2016-000997 In The Matter Of TRADEOUTS LIMITED And In The Matter Of THE INSOLVENCY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CELEST CHAITRAM AND ANDREW SAHATOO MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CELEST CHAITRAM AND Claimant ANDREW SAHATOO MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ******************************************
More informationCONSTRUCTION BRIEFING November 2016
CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING November 2016 New Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes launched The Second Edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes comes
More informationFixed Advocate s Costs in Pre-Action Disclosure Applications: Are They Always Recoverable? THOMAS HERBERT
Fixed Advocate s Costs in Pre-Action Disclosure Applications: Are They Always Recoverable? THOMAS HERBERT 1 The issue 1. Following the Court of Appeal s decision in Sharp -v- Leeds City Council [2017]
More informationLitigation alternatives - Personal Injury Arbitration
Litigation alternatives - Personal Injury Arbitration Contents Executive Summary 2 The problem 4 Clyde & Co s solution 6 Which claims? 7 Advantages 7 PIcArbs process 8 Costs process 10 PIcArbs process
More informationDo you wish there to be a one month stay to attempt to settle the claim, either by informal discussion or by alternative dispute resolution?
Case management information sheet To be completed by, or on behalf of, who is [1 st ][2 nd ][3 rd ][ ][Claimant][Defendant] [Part 20 claimant] in this claim In the County Court High Court of Justice Queen
More informationThe NEW Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes. Simon Tolson
The NEW Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes Simon Tolson Introduction - A bit of background on the Protocol The Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the
More information