26/07/2022
In Daniel Khan v Taylor Haldane Barlex Solicitors, the Claimant brought a claim in professional negligence against his former representatives alleging that they had failed to properly advise him as to the terms of a restraining order precluding contact with his children after he received a criminal conviction. This was disputed, and the Claimant failed to provide any evidence of subsequent court orders which might have clarified his position.
He was warned that his failure rendered his claim susceptible to an application for strike out and/or summary judgment but he took no steps either to provide evidence in support of his contentions or to answer the questions posed by the defendant firm. As a result, the defendant firm applied to strike out —successfully, and with an award of costs on the indemnity basis.
The Judge found that his conduct, in repeatedly failing to provide answers to questions so departing from the normal course of litigation that it was reasonable to assess costs without regard to the claimant’s representations.
Francesca O’Neill represented the successful applicant, instructed by Sarah Irwin of Weightmans LLP.
In this week’s edition Linda Nelson examines how and when to serve surveillance evidence, and how and when to respond to it; and John Schmitt asks whether it’s necessary to have a claim form re-sealed if it’s been amended prior to service, and urges caution…
This week Thomas Yarrow revisits the vexed question of the use of artificial intelligence in legal research – and our intrepid reporter finds that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact the experience led him to such depths of despair that he…
This week Ben Rodgers relays two tales from the coalface, both relating to applications to resile from admissions. Readers will be interested to know that in both cases the court applied the balance of prejudice test with the result that the defendants’ applications were refused….
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR