Category: CPR

CPR Part 36 Part 18 Litigation UK Solicitors

High Court holds Ed Sheeran’s lawyers gave inadequate responses to Part 18 requests in copyright infringement case

The High Court has held that singer Ed Sheeran, ignored CPR Part 18 Requests for Information from Defendants in a copyright infringement case. The Court takes breaches of its rules seriously.

part 36 settlement offer litigation advice

Claimant’s Part 36 offer containing error for relevant period held to be compliant

In the High Court case of Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No 3) [2020] EWHC 2387 (TCC), it was held that a Claimant’s Part 36 offer which failed to correctly set out the relevant period was still deemed compliant with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

perry raleys solicitors london litigation lawyers lexlaw

Case Study: Supreme Court rules on Reflective Loss in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd

This decision confirms the rule against reflective loss as an important tool to protect the payment waterfall for unsecured creditors in the event of a company’s insolvency.

norwich pharmacal order pre-action disclosure CPR application litigation high court twitter social media defamation libel

Norwich Pharmacal Pre-Action Disclosure Order granted for barrister to disclose defamatory Twitter messages

In the High Court case of Collier & Ors v Bennett, three claimants obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order against Doughty Street Chambers’ barrister, Daniel Bennett for pre-action disclosure of messages and details of a Twitter account to assist victims of libel and harassment.

lexlaw prosecution damages based agreementscovid 19 corona virus courts remote hearing

Damages Based Agreements: High Court confirms DBA enforceability

The High Court judgment in Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2020] EWHC 1855 (Ch) (10 July 2020) provides much needed certainty over payment provisions on early termination in DBAs. The clarity given by HHJ Parfitt in relation to the DBA Regulations will widen access to justice as impecunious litigants will be more able to pursue civil and commercial litigation via damages-based agreements.

part 36 settlement offer litigation advice

High Court rule service of Claim Form to be ineffective

Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers [2020] EWHC 1708 is another case concerning where and when service may occur on the Defendant’s solicitors. The facts are similar to the Court of Appeal case of Woodward v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution (which Lexlaw were instructed on). The Claimant, a litigant in person, purportedly served the Claim Form on the last day of its four month validity period via email on the Defendants’ solicitors, who had not confirmed whether they were authorised to accept service. This amounted to a failure to effect service of the Claim Form. Applications to the Court to validate service were refused and the claim dismissed highlighting the dangers of ‘DIY litigation’ and the importance of instructing a specialist litigation team.

failure to mediate costs

The Cost of an Unreasonable Refusal to Mediate

All solicitors have a duty to advise their clients about alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation. Along with the ADR requirements in the pre-action protocols, the CPR and court schemes, overall, mediation is an option that must be considered by parties both before and during litigation (and a failure to do so can lead to costs penalties).