To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
2 thoughts on “SG v Hewitt”
Any sort of application of the ‘unjust to do so’ Part 36 rule was likely to lead to a tiny period of unrest. Given that the new Part 36 was brought in around 06-07 it’s a surprise it’s took this long. Then again, how long was th wait for a decision on funding under the CPR (10 years)?
I think satellite litigation is an exaggeration though. It’s no CFA reg challenge and unlike things like the CFA regs this sort of thing was entirely expected to be litigated sooner or later.
Matthews v Metal Improvements is still good law (as far as I can tell). A couple more high court decisions and we will have a narrow, but effective way of telling whether the normal rule under Part 36 can be set aside. That is better than injustice of the strict rule.
Also, as a claimant friendly lawyer that deals with defendant’s that make offers well outside of the pre-action protocol period and without any explanation as to admissions or how the offer was calculated, I am broadly confident that Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham Green will prove useful.
—————-
How about something on the laughable article regarding DAS and the lack of up take on BTE LEI? Now that they have killed off ATE, perhaps looking to put pressure on the Gov’t to make LEI compulsory. Ho ho ho consumers; premiums only ever go one way.
“How about something on the laughable article regarding DAS and the lack of up take on BTE LEI? Now that they have killed off ATE, perhaps looking to put pressure on the Gov’t to make LEI compulsory.”
Hmmm how about something on how pants BTE is generally
1. You will report to me regularly and give me great swathes of info but never ever charge for thetime it takes
2. You will not so much look at the file without prior permission
3. You will only be allowed to undertake work in £750 chunks and you must adhere to the various limits we impose
4. We will continually curtail the limit of your investigations on complex litigation as all medical reports should be £1200 or less
you get the idea …
sorry not on the original topic but does follow on from the first response