Litigation round-up May 2024

Claim forms

The Court of Appeal has held that CPR 19.1 and CPR 7.3 mean what they say. Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to proceedings, and claimants may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The court will determine what is convenient according to the facts of every case (Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors).

Applications

An application is made is when it is received by the court and not when it is issued by the court.  Where an applicant fails to comply with the fee payment provisions in relation to an application, it cannot be properly filed and cannot therefore be issued by the court. In turn, this means that the applicant cannot comply with CPR 23.7 and PD 23A which require the applicant to serve the issued application notice on the opposing party. Serving a draft copy of the notice of application as soon as practicable after it is filed is required under CPR 23.4 and is good professional practice, but it cannot take the place of the need to serve the issued application (Jaiyesimi v Kukoyi).

Costs budgets and Part 8 proceedings

CPR 3.12(1) exempts litigants in Part 8 proceedings from complying with costs budgeting. It was, however, appropriate to require all parties involved in these Part 8 proceedings to file and serve a costs budget. This included the second defendant, a litigant in person who employed counsel on a direct access basis. Her potential costs claim for counsel’s fees was substantial, and so requiring her to file and serve a costs budget would help to ensure effective costs management (Cotham School v Bristol City Council).

Solicitors acting without authority

The defendants’ application for a wasted costs order against a non-party law firm was justified. The costs were incurred in protective proceedings brought against the defendants relating to a Nigerian offshore oil spill. The firm was found to have lacked authority to act for all but five out of 27,830 claimants. Regarding the application for a non-party costs order, it was appropriate to make a disclosure order against the firm given the its control of the litigation, its potential benefit from that litigation, the lack of after-the-event insurance and the involvement of third-party investors (Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell).

Exclusive jurisdiction agreements

The court refused to stay proceedings to give effect to exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of the Russian courts, on the grounds that the claimants were unlikely to receive a fair trial in Russia.  The claimants had brought claims against insurers in respect of aircraft leased to Russian airlines. The judge accepted that it was likely that a Russian court would be subject to pressure not to make a decision adverse to the interests of Russian insurers and reinsurers (Zephyrus Capital Aviation Partners 1D Ltd v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd).