Mark Surguy, Partner at Weightmans has over 25 years' private practice experience of domestic and international commercial litigation, fraud and insolvency.
He practises in commercial misconduct, including corporate investigations (internal and external), freezing and search orders, disclosure orders, asset tracing and other remedies arising at common law, in equity and under statute arising out of suspected fraud and wrongdoing across multiple sectors.
Mark has specialist expertise and knowledge in computer forensics, digital evidence, data protection and E-Discovery (including cross-border E-Discovery).
Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution
This Practice Note considers the power of the court to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and a party’s ability to apply for such an adjournment. In particular, it sets out the five specific ‘Fitzroy Robinson’ factors the court will consider when determining an application to adjourn or bring forward a hearing, together with consideration of cases in which the Fitzroy factors have been applied (including Bank St Petersburg). It also looks at other factors the court may take into account, including the timing of the application to adjourn, ill-health, public interest, where the parties are prevented from attending trial because of an anti-suit injunction, the absence of witnesses and insufficient preparation time. It considers what medical evidence must be provided when applying to adjourn on the grounds of ill-health. Guidance is also given on the relationship between CPR 39.3 (the court’s power to strike out proceedings following a party’s non-attendance at trial) and applications to adjourn. Finally, practical tips on making an adjournment application are offered (including appealing a decision dealing with an application to adjourn and the costs of an adjournment) and what options are available to a respondent to an application to adjourn.
This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Russell Hill of Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP and Mark Surguy of Weightmans LLP, looks at investigation and enquiry into a company’s assets for insolvency office-holders, the equitable process of tracing, substitution and the practical considerations for asset tracing.
This Precedent and its associated Drafting Notes offer guidance on drafting a litigation co-operation (LCA) agreement between co-claimants. It addresses various issues that commonly arise when parties are bringing a claim together including but where only one firm of solicitors is permitted to appear on the record as acting for all parties: liability for costs and fees; how the fees of the solicitors who are on the record for the claimants are to be paid; how any costs awards, damages and/or settlement are to be apportioned; the extent to which the parties are required to co-operate with each other in progressing the litigation (including in relation to disclosure, evidence generally, complying with rules, practice directions and court orders, settlement etc); indemnities in the event they do not co-operate; confidentiality, both as between themselves and as between the other parties; privilege etc. It also incorporates various boilerplate provisions. This agreement is not suitable for class claims or group actions. It is likely to be suitable for a limited category of cases where co-claimants do not want to use the same firm of solicitors. The scenario chosen in this precedent is co-claimants who were formerly under common ownership in a corporate group but owing to a re-organisation the ownership of the co-claimants is no longer the same. The precedent is confined to two claimants but could be adapted to accommodate more than two.
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
0330 161 1234