In considering costs issues following judgment in a complex patent action, the High Court had to determine whether it was appropriate for the court to be
In our e-bulletin dated 16 February, we reported on the Court of Appeal's decision in Swain-Mason and ors v Mills & Reeve 2011 EWCA Civ 14 which, we said, signalled a strict approach to applications for late amendments.
In a very recent judgment the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's decision that an offer that was expressed to be made under Part 36 and to be "open for 21 days" was time-limited and therefore not a valid Part 36 offer: C v D 2011 EWCA Civ 646.
In a judgment handed down in January, the Court of Appeal has sent a strong message against taking a relaxed approach to late amendments and as to the precision required for a proper pleading: Swain-Mason and ors v Mills & Reeve 2011 EWCA Civ 14.
A very recent Court of Appeal decision confirms that a party will not be penalised for making a Part 36 offer to settle, even where the level of the offer turns out to be misjudged: Rolf v De Guerin 2011 EWCA Civ 78.
A recent High Court judgment has important practical implications for how offers are drafted under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and for the possible costs consequences of offers previously made: C v D & D2 2010 EWHC (Ch), 16 November 2010.
In its judgment handed down on 27 October 2010 in Oceanbulk Trading & Shipping SA v TMT Asia 2010 UKSC 44, the Supreme Court added a new exception to the 'without prejudice' rule.
'Without prejudice' privilege prevents communications between parties made in a genuine attempt to resolve disputes from being admissible in proceedings.
In Williams v Hull 2009 EWHC 2844 (Ch) Arnold J upheld the 'without prejudice' status of a letter, deciding also that the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception did not apply notwithstanding a serious risk of perjury.
In Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited 2009 EWHC 1946 (Comm) Andrew Smith J in the Commercial Court ruled that evidence of 'without prejudice' exchanges was admissible, not only to identify the terms of a settlement agreement, but also to explain the meaning of those terms.