³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related practice notes about Additional claim

Part 36 offers—split trial cases

Part 36 offers—split trial cases This Practice Note considers Part 36 offers in split trial cases noting the additional factors that are relevant when making or receiving a Part 36, particularly with regard to disclosure and acceptance of Part 36 offers. Note, CPR 36.12, CPR 36.16(3)(d) and CPR 36.16(4) contain additional specific rules relevant to Part 36 offers in split trial cases. Why have specific provision for split trial cases? CPR 36.2(3) confirms that a party can make a Part 36 offer in respect of 'the whole or part of, or any issue that arises in a claim, counterclaim or other additional claim, or an appeal or cross appeal from a decision made at trial'. It is clear and, indeed, anticipated that parties may make Part 36 offers which are limited to individual issue(s) and which may be decided at separate trials. Examples might be a Part 36 offer limited only to liability or quantum or on a specific issue such as, eg limitation. Equally, the offeror...

Strike out—strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) (CPR 3.4(2)(d))

Strike out—strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) (CPR 3.4(2)(d)) This Practice Note explains the circumstances in which a statement of case may be struck out where the claim constitutes strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) and how to apply for such a strike out. For general guidance on striking out a statement of case, see: • Summary judgment and strike out—overview • Practice Note: Strike out applications—what, who and when What is strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP)? The measures concerning SLAPP were enacted to address concerns about the improper use of the legal system to harass or intimidate opponents. For the background and history, see Practice Note: Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)—key definitions and procedures—SLAPPs statutory definition and procedure. Note that SLAPP is also sometimes referred to as strategic ‘lawsuits’ against public participation (SLAPPS). Strategic litigation against public participation is defined in section 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023). For further details, see Practice Note: Strategic lawsuits against public participation...

View the related precedents about Additional claim

Order granting permission to make an additional claim for a contribution or indemnity against a co-defendant

Order granting permission to make an additional claim for a contribution or indemnity against a co-defendant Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge][insert name] dated:[insert date] between: [insert name]        Claimant/Respondent and [insert name]        First Defendant [/Applicant] _______________________________________ [ Draft ] order granting permission to serve additional claim against A CO-DEFENDANT _______________________________________ On hearing counsel/solicitor for the [first OR second OR third] defendant [and the [first OR second OR third] defendant OR Upon reading the application notice dated [insert date of notice]] It is ordered that: 1 The [first OR second OR third] defendant has permission to serve an additional claim and

Counter schedule of loss—multi track

Counter schedule of loss—multi track [IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant ________________________________________________ COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS ________________________________________________ The Defendant reserves the right to alter, amend or add to this Counter Schedule of Loss at any time up to and including trial. PAST LOSSES 1 Past loss of earnings (i) Loss of earnings to [insert date eg 26 February 2019] are agreed in the pleaded claim of £[insert amount]. (ii)–(iii) Loss in the period [insert date eg 26 February 2019] to [insert date eg 25 August 2019] is not admitted. In principle, the Defendant would accept that it might take some time to obtain equally remunerative work. However, the Claimant’s evidence does not evidence reasonable steps to: 1.1 obtain work at a similar salary; 1.2 obtain an improved salary from that which he earned as a [insert job title eg HGV driver]. 2 Past...

View the related q&as about Additional claim

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure?

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure? In this Q&A, the defendant’s Part 20 claim is a counterclaim that has been made against a person other than the claimant under CPR 20.5. Is a Part 20 defendant required to file a directions questionnaire? CPR 20 deals with counterclaims and other additional claims by the defendant. CPR 20.3(2) sets out which of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to additional claims (which, as defined in CPR 20.2(2) includes counterclaims). Included in the rules that do not apply to additional claims is CPR 26, which sets out the requirement for the parties to file a directions questionnaire (DQ)....

View the related News about Additional claim

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Ruling on the scope of ‘same damage’ in a contribution claim pursued by a motor insurer sued directly (Navid Doroudvash v Zurich Insurance plc)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Can a motor insurer sued directly under the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 (2002 Regulations) bring a Part 20 claim in its own name pursuant to the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1978)? The potential additional party argued not. Written by Jamie Clarke, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.