July/August 2013 #50 – Law Journals

Procedure: Sticking to the rules – courts get tough on compliance post-Jackson

Anna Pertoldi and Maura McIntosh look at judicial views on compliance ‘A number of High Court decisions since 1 April have highlighted the increased focus on compliance. This article considers three of the recent judgments.’ The changes brought in on 1 April 2013 to implement the Jackson reforms included two that received comparatively little attention …

Continue reading "Procedure: Sticking to the rules – courts get tough on compliance post-Jackson"

This post is only available to members.

Reforms: Taking a break

Simon Chandler and Sally Lord examine the emerging approach to relief from sanctions taken by the courts since the 1 April reforms ‘It is evident that the TCC continues to show itself a keen, even aggressive, proponent of the Jackson reforms and it is used to adopting a leadership role on rule changes and innovations.’ …

Continue reading "Reforms: Taking a break"

This post is only available to members.

Sanctions: Method in our madness!

Radd Seiger and Helen Morris discuss the lessons to be learned from Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd ‘It is now abundantly clear that changes are afoot in the courts’ approach and application of the CPR.’ We represented the defendant in the Court of Appeal decision of Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc …

Continue reading "Sanctions: Method in our madness!"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Turning the tables: costs orders against claimants’ solicitors

Judith Bloor and Christopher Malla assess the implications of Flatman v Germany; Weddall v Barchester Health Care Ltd ‘Recent changes in the costs regime, which came into force from 1 April 2013, include qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) in personal injury cases.’In Flatman v Germany; Weddall v Barchester Health Care Ltd [2013], the Court of …

Continue reading "Costs: Turning the tables: costs orders against claimants’ solicitors"

This post is only available to members.

Arbitration: We’ve got the power

Guy Pendell and David Bridge report on a recent Supreme Court judgment dealing with anti-suit injunctions JSC appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that the court had jurisdiction to make a final anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings brought by JSC, in breach of an arbitration clause.In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the Supreme …

Continue reading "Arbitration: We’ve got the power"

This post is only available to members.

Company: De-Prest – corporate veil remains securely drawn

Alex Fox and Clare Arthurs consider the implications of the Prest decision ‘Lord Sumption criticised the ‘indiscriminate’ use of the expression ‘piercing the corporate veil’ to describe a number of different things. Correctly used, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company.’ The Supreme Court has recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the …

Continue reading "Company: De-Prest – corporate veil remains securely drawn"

This post is only available to members.

Practice: Do it yourself – any further guidance since Tinkler v Elliot?

Thomas Crockett reviews developments in the treatment of litigants in person Courts ought to be mindful of making provision for litigants in person, whom are likely to face an inherent litigation disadvantage in the overwhelming majority of cases. In recent years the courts have seen a rise in the number of people litigating without professional …

Continue reading "Practice: Do it yourself – any further guidance since Tinkler v Elliot?"

This post is only available to members.