Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Caroline Tuckwell
Court Of Appeal Clarifies When A Party In Breach Of A Court Rule Or Order Must Apply For Relief From Sanctions
The Court of Appeal has found that a claimant did not need relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 where it made a late application for permission to rely on additional expert evidence. This contrasts with the position for witnesses of fact, where the rules contain an express sanction for failing to serve a witness statement on time, and therefore relief from sanctions is required if a party wants to call a witness whose statement was served late: Yess (A) Electrical Ltd v Warren [2024] EWCA Civ 14.
Collateral Use Of Disclosed Documents: High Court Declines To Restrict Use Of Documents Referred To At Public Hearing
In a recent decision, the High Court held that certain documents had been “referred to” at a public hearing, so that the usual restrictions on collateral use of documents disclosed in legal proceedings did not apply to them. It declined to make an order prohibiting or restricting their subsequent use: Saint-Gobain Adfors S.A.S v 3M Innovative Properties Company [2023] EWHC 2949 (Pat).
Late Amendments To Statements Of Case: Helpful Guidance From The Court Of Appeal
A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifies how the court should exercise its discretion in considering an application to amend that is brought late, but not very late in the sense that the amendment would cause loss of the trial date: CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Ltd v Carvill-Biggs [2023] EWCA Civ 480.
Late amendments to statements of case: helpful guidance from the Court of Appeal
A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifies how the court should exercise its discretion in considering an application to amend that is brought late, but not very late in the sense that the amendment would cause loss of the trial date: CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Ltd v Carvill-Biggs [2023] EWCA Civ 480.
High Court Declines To Impose Disclosure Conditions On Party Wishing To Replace Expert As No
In a recent case the High Court has considered its discretion to require disclosure of documents relating to a previous expert's views when granting a party permission to adduce evidence from a new expert: The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd [2022] EWHC 2750.
A Counterclaiming Defendant Can Make A Valid
UK: A Counterclaiming Defendant Can Make A Valid "claimant's" Part 36 Offer 03 February 2022 by Anna Pertoldi , Maura McIntosh and Caroline Tuckwell Herbert Smith Freehills To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. In a recent decision, the High Court has confirmed that a party can obtain the costs benefits of making a "claimant's" Part 36 offer in relation to its counterclaim, even though it is not formally the claimant in the litigation.
Court of Appeal orders defendants to request their employees and ex-employees to produce personal devices for inspection to identify documents in defendants’ control - Lexology
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision that, where personal devices belonging to the defendants’ employees and ex-employees potentially contained relevant documents within the defendants’ “control” for the purposes of disclosure, the court had jurisdiction to order the defendants to request the employees and ex-employees to deliver up those devices for inspection by the defendants’ IT consultants: Phones 4U Limited v EE Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 116.
Defendant awarded its costs where claimant failed to beat withdrawn Part 36 offer, as the offer should have been accepted when it was on the table | Lexology
In circumstances where a claimant failed to beat a defendant’s Part 36 offer, the High Court has granted the defendant a favourable costs order, very similar to the costs consequences that would have applied under CPR Part 36, despite the defendant having withdrawn the Part 36 offer before trial: Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2020] EWHC 2128 (TCC) The automatic costs consequences under CPR Part 36 do not apply to a withdrawn offer, but the offer may still be taken into...
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Caroline
Contact Caroline, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack