Category: Pre-action Protocol

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.

rcj royal courts of justice exterior lexlaw litigation tax winding up lawyers

Litigation: Can Recorded Conversations be used as evidence in Court?

Modern technology has allowed anyone to be able to record a conversation very easily. However recording a conversation without the participants knowledge could be considered a breach of…

rcj royal court justice lawyer london litigate cpr civil commercial financial litigation

Is an email confidential if I copy in a lawyer? Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of legal advice privilege

The Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision on 28 January 2020 in Civil Aviation Authority v R (on behalf of the application of Jet2.com Ltd) [2020]…

RCJ royal courts of justice london strand address lexlaw litigation solicitor professional negligence legal negligent claim advice no win no fee

A Warning to Lawyers in Professional Negligence Claims: Solicitors owe a duty to warn clients of risks

A solicitor is not under a general duty to warn clients about risks relating to matters which fall outside the scope of the client retainer; a potential professional negligence claim exists where there is a failure to warn as to risks which are material to the retainer.