Competition class actions
The Supreme Court restored the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s refusal to certify the FX class action on an opt-out basis. The need to facilitate the vindication of rights and to deter future wrongdoers must be balanced against the need to protect defendants from the burden of unmeritorious opt-out claims. The CAT must consider the interests of both parties when deciding whether to certify collective proceedings as opt-in or opt-out (Evans v Barclays Bank Plc).
Part 36 offers
The Court of Appeal considered the effect of a claimant's Part 36 offer to settle liability in a fast track personal injury claim. The court held that, contrary to the decision in Mundy v TUI UK Ltd, a 90/10 percentage liability offer can in principle engage the costs consequences under CPR 36.17(4), taking the case outside the fixed costs regime. Here the claim had been settled at the door of the court. However, for CPR 36.17(4) to apply, liability must be determined at trial or admitted by the defendant (Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School).
Notice to prove document authenticity
A CPR 32.19 notice to prove the authenticity of a document should be served by the latest date for serving witness statements or within 7 days of disclosure of the document. Where a party alleges deliberate forgery, a CPR 32.19 notice is not sufficient. An allegation of fraud must be pleaded with full particulars, unless it is not a necessary part of the party’s pleaded case or is said to go to the credit of a witness (Ndungu v SPG Ltd – see our article).
Statement of value
The court awarded two claimants over £150,000 each in damages for wrongful eviction despite the fact that their Particulars of Claim stated that they were claiming “Damages (General, Special, Aggravated & Exemplary) in excess of £1,000 but less than £100,000”. The decision could not be challenged on this ground: the power to make an award of damages is not constrained simply because of a statement of value in the Particulars of Claim (WLP Trading & Marketing Ltd v Albalous).
Stay of proceedings
Only the court can stay proceedings. Parties can agree to apply to the court for a stay but they cannot agree a stay without the court’s order. Here the proceedings were stayed by the court. The parties subsequently agreed to extend time for settlement negotiations but they did not apply by consent to extend the stay. In the circumstances, the court refused to extend time for service of the claim form and particulars of claim under CPR 7.6 (Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd – see our article).
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.