ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Adduce

Multi-track—case management—checklist

Multi-track—case management—checklist This checklist is based on what is required for a case proceeding on the multi-track under CPR 29 and CPR PD 29 (which deal with case management in the multi-track). It should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Multi-track—case management and Multi-track—case management conference (CMC), which give guidance on case management generally and case management conferences (CMCs) in the multi-track. This Checklist sets out a broad overview of some of the case management issues to be considered and addressed early in proceedings and before any CMC is held. It is not a definitive list and you will need to consider each of the issues in more detail as relevant to the facts of the specific case. The approach taken by the court to managing the claim will also differ depending on the court in which the claim is proceeding and you will need to consider the specifics of case management in the particular court, including the guidance given in that court’s guide. For more information, see: Court...

View the related practice notes about Adduce

Applying for permission to adduce expert evidence

This Practice Note looks at the process of seeking the court’s permission to adduce expert evidence under CPR 35 and provides guidance on what to consider prior to applying, when and how to apply for permission and what the court will consider when determining whether to grant such permission. It sets out practical tips for those seeking permission to adduce expert evidence and for those opposing; for those seeking to challenge an order granting their opponent permission to call an expert and revoking permission for expert evidence. The Practice Note also considers compliance with directions (including the sanctions that apply under CPR 35.13 for defaulting and practical tips to avoid a breach), issues surrounding the other side’s failure to adduce expert evidence and co-operation between parties in relation to expert evidence.This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Expert evidence—general considerations.Which provisions should I have in mind when considering expert evidence?Expert witnesses, and those instructing them, are expected to have regard to:•CPR 35 and all relevant CPR...

Expert evidence—Jackson reforms [Archived]

ARCHIVED: Note:•this Practice Note provides guidance on provisions which came into force on 1 April 2013•this Practice Note only addresses the amendments to CPR 35.4. For guidance on the introduction of concurrent expert evidence (also introduced under the Jackson Reforms) or on expert evidence generally, see: Hot-tubbing (Concurrent expert evidence) and Experts' meetings and joint statements respectively•you should also have regard to all relevant provisions set out in any applicable court guide. See: Court guides and other guidanceNOTE: This Practice Note provides a summary of the amendment to CPR 35.4 introduced on 1 April 2014. It does not address developments since that date and is, therefore, not maintained.Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations—effective case managementLord Justice Jackson identified expert evidence as one of the areas in which the cost of litigation could potentially be significantly reduced. He observed that if expert reports ‘are longer than they need to be, or address (at length) matters that are irrelevant or at best peripheral, or which ought not to be covered at all, it is...

View the related precedents about Adduce

Letter of instruction to a single joint expert in financial remedy proceedings

Letter of instruction to a single joint expert in financial remedy proceedings 1 Introduction This is a letter of instruction to you to act as a single joint expert in financial remedy proceedings relating to divorce proceedings between [client’s full name] and [spouse’s full name]. You are being instructed jointly by [lead firm preparing letter] who act on behalf of [client’s full name] and [name and address of spouse’s solicitors], [telephone number and email of spouse’s solicitors] on behalf of [spouse’s full name], but on the basis that you will provide an expert opinion independent of each of them. At the first appointment on [date of first appointment], District Judge [name] sitting at the Family Court at [location] made the following order [insert exact wording from order]. The scope of your instructions is set out in the order dated [date of first appointment order] and in this letter. 2 Arrangements for preparing the report Should you need to discuss the report, either on a preliminary basis...

Letter of instruction to a single joint expert to value land or property

Letter of instruction to a single joint expert to value land or property 1 Introduction This letter is written as a joint instruction to you as an expert in financial remedy proceedings relating to divorce proceedings between [client’s full name] and [spouse’s full name]. You are being instructed jointly by [lead firm preparing letter] who act on behalf of [client’s full name] and [name and address of spouse’s solicitors], [telephone number and email of spouse’s solicitors] on behalf of [spouse’s full name], but on the basis that you will provide an expert opinion independent of each of them. At the first appointment on [date of first appointment], District Judge [name] sitting at the Family Court at [location] made the following order [insert exact wording from order]. The parties have agreed that you should be instructed on a joint basis as the single joint expert. Your scope of instructions is as set out in the order dated [date of first appointment order] and in this letter. 2 Arrangements...

View the related q&as about Adduce

Coronavirus (Covid-19)—What happens in situations where an application needs to be heard before a certain date? Would the court be willing to provide relief if it is unable to arrange for an application to be heard?

Coronavirus (Covid-19)—What happens in situations where an application needs to be heard before a certain date? Would the court be willing to provide relief if it is unable to arrange for an application to be heard? The response of the courts to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been patchy and confused. The position changes from day-to-day as to whether hearings should go ahead, whether they should be in person, and whether non-urgent cases should simply be adjourned or conducted remotely. At the time of writing the guidance suggests that where cases can be heard remotely, they will be—see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)-Civil and Family Courts guidance from Lord Chief Justice—LNB News 19/03/2020 93, and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Guidance on telephone and video hearings updated—LNB News 19/03/2020 18, but the ability of the various court buildings to provide for this is highly questionable. In ongoing litigation there will be circumstances where a hearing is required within a particular time—for example an application to adduce expert evidence will be required to be heard before the trial....

In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996, the applicant has produced as part of their evidence a recording of the respondent made without the respondent’s knowledge. The respondent believes that the applicant has made further covert recordings which have not been disclosed. Is there case law to support that the applicant or their solicitors should disclose copies of all covert recordings made?

In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996, the applicant has produced as part of their evidence a recording of the respondent made without the respondent’s knowledge. The respondent believes that the applicant has made further covert recordings which have not been disclosed. Is there case law to support that the applicant or their solicitors should disclose copies of all covert recordings made? The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence committed where an individual covertly records a conversation with another individual. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) applies to public bodies but not to individuals. Likewise, the Telecommunications(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2699 apply to businesses in respect of the recording of conversations without notice to the person being recorded or in certain specified exceptional circumstances. In Jones v University of Warwick, an enquiry agent...

View the related News about Adduce

Appropriate assessments and planning committee’s failure to consider relevant information (R (on the application of Dr Rosalind Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)

Planning analysis: In Bradbury v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a decision to grant planning permission for two developments, despite the planning committee’s failure to consider relevant information (specifically, the absence of appropriate assessments and the potential impact of the proposed development on the integrity of the River Wye Special Area of Conservation) on the basis that it was highly likely the committee would have reached the same decision even if this breach had not occurred. (R (on the application of Dr Rosalind Bradbury) v Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)). Written by Martha Grekos, barrister at Martha Grekos Legal Consultancy.

Singapore High Court orders partial setting aside of award of damages made in excess of scope of submission to arbitration (India Glycols Ltd and others v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a successful partial setting aside of an arbitral Award of damages pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) on grounds that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. In this case, the Singapore High Court partially set aside a part of the Award imposing liability for damages for breach of contract on two of the three Respondents, finding that the issue of the two Respondents’ breach of contract and liability for the same never arose in the arbitration nor was it within the scope of the submission to arbitration. This case provides useful guidance as to how a court approaches a challenge to an award made in excess of a tribunal’s jurisdiction. Written by Magdalene Ong, partner at WongPartnership LLP.