All articles by Masood Ahmed – Page 5
-
-
FeatureCivil procedure: conduct and costs
The significance of alternative dispute resolution and offers to settle under Civil Procedure Rule 44.2.
-
FeatureService by the courts
A recent case provides clarification and guidance on the issue of service by the courts in contravention of the claimant’s instructions.
-
FeatureForeign arbitral awards
‘Certification’ of arbitration agreements under the Arbitration Act 1996.
-
-
FeatureCivil procedure: new regime
The new regime of strict rule compliance applies to the whole of the CPR.
-
FeatureCivil procedure: CPR 6.9
A recent case offers a reminder of the need to carefully consider the rules on service of the claim form.
-
FeatureCivil procedure – out of excuses
The message is clear: court orders, rules and practice directions must be strictly complied with.
-
FeatureUse of disclosed documents
This update looks at how a recent case raised the question whether courts should give permission for the use of disclosed documents in subsequent third-party proceedings.
-
FeatureFailing to respond to ADR invitation
A recent significant case asked: how should the court deal with parties who do not respond to alternative dispute resolution invitations?
-
FeatureJudicial recusal
The doctrine of judicial recusal dictates that a judge may recuse himself from proceedings if he decides that it is not appropriate for him to hear a case listed to be heard by him.
-
FeatureClaim forms and ‘good reason’
In Abela and others v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44, the Supreme Court provided important guidance on the interpretation and application of rule 6.15(1) and (2)
-
FeaturePost-Jackson: enforcing court orders and time limits
The new post-Jackson landscape is beginning to take shape and this is well illustrated by the change in the courts’ approach to the enforcement of court orders and time limits.
-
Feature
Arbitration agreements and anti-suit injunctions outside the EU
The sanctity of the arbitration agreement is well known. Parties can only refer their dispute to an arbitral tribunal if the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute through arbitration. This agreement can either take the form of an arbitration clause incorporated within a contract between the parties, or it ...
-
News
Civil procedure: capacity and compromise
Civil Procedure Rule 21.10 provides that where a claim is made by or on behalf of a party who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings (a child or protected party), no settlement of that claim shall be valid without the approval of the court. The issue before Bean J in ...
-
News
Litigants in person; oral evidence; and costs management
Sir Alan Ward in Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 234, a case which concerned two litigants in person (LIPs), opened his judgment by warning the reader that ‘this judgment will make depressing reading’. The case highlighted the difficulties increasingly encountered by the judiciary at all levels ...
-
News
Costs and assessing unreasonable behaviour
The general principle on costs in civil litigation is clear: the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party, albeit that the court has discretion to order otherwise (Civil Procedure Rule 44.3 (2)).
-
News
Part 36: the normal costs rules
The normal costs rules under part 36.10(5)(a) and (b) provide that, where a part 36 offer is accepted after the relevant period has expired and unless the court orders otherwise, the claimant will be entitled to the costs of the proceedings up to the date on which the relevant period ...
-
News
Jackson’s 10% increase in general damages
On 1 April 2013, the reforms to civil costs contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will come into force. Part 2 of the act provides for the implementation of recommendations 7, 9, 14 and 94 of the final report on civil litigation costs by ...
-
News
Applications to vary or revoke an order pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.1(7)
Does the court, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.1(7), have the power to vary or revoke an order which it has itself made? This was the question before the Court of Appeal in Tibbles v SIG Plc (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518.