Misuse of AI
The court has given guidance about the proper use of AI for legal research. In the two cases before the court, there had been actual or suspected use of GenAI tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which the lawyers had not checked. Contempt of court proceedings may follow where false information is put before the court by any party or their lawyer (R (Ayinde) v Qatar National Bank QPSC).
Service of claim form
The courts have recently considered what steps a claimant should “reasonably take” to discover a defendant’s current address under CPR 6.9(3), where they have reason to believe that the defendant no longer resides at their “usual or last known residence”. This may include engaging an investigator. If they are unable to discover the current address, they must consider whether to serve the claim form at an alternative place or by an alternative method under CPR 6.9(4) (Jeffery v Teevan and Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd).
Contribution claims
The Supreme Court has held that a right to contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 arises when the party seeking contribution is ordered (by a judgment or arbitration award) to make, or makes or agrees to make, a payment to the claimant in compensation for the damage. The payment in question may be a payment in kind such as performing remedial works in compensation for damage suffered by the claimant. In this situation, the limitation period of two years begins to run as soon as there is an identifiable amount of money to which the other party may be ordered to make contribution (URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd).
Part 18 requests for information
The court can order compliance with a Part 18 request for clarification of particulars of claim before service of a defence. In this case, the court held that the cost of providing the clarification sought would be minimal and would enable the defendant to know what case has to be met (Kurvits v Kender).
Sealed claim forms
Where the claimant amends the claim form without permission before service under CPR 17.1, there is no requirement to re-seal the amended version before serving it. Service of the original sealed claim form with a manuscript amendment was therefore good service. The claimant in this scenario should file the amended version in accordance with CPR 6.17(2) (Beckett v Graham).
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.