Tag: Civil Procedure Rules

expert evidence remote hearings

High Court: Breaches of procedural rules when it comes to expert advice will not be tolerated

Expert evidence is important and can help prove a claim or disprove allegations, especially where the case involves matters on which the court does not have the requisite technical or academic knowledge, or the case involves issues of foreign law. Unlike witnesses of fact, a qualified expert is permitted to give opinion evidence on any relevant matter.

High Court provides reminder of the strict rules on valid service of the Claim Form

High Court rejects retrospective (one day) extension of time for service of the sealed Claim Form. The Claimant has a potential professional negligence claim against its’ solicitors.

lexlaw litigation lawyers london civil evidence advice

Witness Statements: New Rules Upcoming in the Business and Property Courts

Key changes include a new draft Practice Direction 57AC; the need to identify the documents which the witness has been referred to for the purpose of providing the evidence and endorsement by a certificate of compliance signed by a lawyer.

litigation court justice london lawyers

Contempt of Court: Updated Part 81 of the Civil Procedure Rules

The third amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules 2020 will come into effect from 1 October 2020. Following a public consultation, extensive revisions were undertaken to condense the previous rules and to set out a uniform procedure. The new Part 81 reduces the number of rules from 38 to 10. Our specialist litigation lawyers can advise you in relation to any contempt of Court applications you may wish to issue or defend.

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.