There is nothing in the general law, or in the CPR, which positively obliges a claimant to include in the pleaded case all the claims which could arguably be advanced against a defendant. See Khiaban v Beard for further information. However, when allocating a claim the court will consider a number of factors. Value of the claim is usually the key consideration for track allocation. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Where to start a civil claim which provides information on which court to issue your claim in, depending on the value of the claim and other factors • Case management—allocation—the different case management tracks Small claims track CPR 27 deals with the small claims track. The small claims track is the usual track for any claim with a financial value of not

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the claimant was driving the stolen vehicle and the traffic accident involved a third party. In a claim for personal injury in a road traffic accident where the claimant has been involved in criminal activity, the defence of illegality (often referred to as ex turpi causa) may be available. Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents explains that the principle is that if the claim is so closely connected or inextricably bound up with the claimant's own criminal or illegal conduct that the court cannot permit them to recover without appearing to condone such behaviour, it will not succeed. Illegality (ex turpi causa) In order to raise the defence of illegality, the conduct must be serious and it must be relevant to the breach of duty. Even if a claimant is involved in criminal activity at the time of the accident,

Amendment generally A statement of case is defined in CPR 2.3(1). The court's permission for an amendment to a statement of case will not be required where: • the document being amended has not yet been served on the parties (CPR 17.1(1)), or • all the other parties have consented in writing to the amendment (CPR 17.1(2)(a)) Even if a party amends without permission the court can still disallow the amendments (CPR 17.2(1)). For examples of amendments the courts have refused, see Practice Note: Amending a statement of case—introduction. Where an application is made to amend, in certain circumstances, the application may be dealt with by the court without a hearing. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Applications without a hearing (paper applications). A court will generally grant permission to amend a statement

Following the reforms in sections 44–48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), which amended section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (CLSA 1990),

Where the claimant is a protected party under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection, the past and future fees charged by the Court of Protection can be included in the claim. Additional fees will be incurred if a deputy has been appointed to make decisions regarding the claimant's property and financial affairs. These fees and expenses can be included in the schedule of past and future loss and damage as heads of damage. Commentary: Running things for the claimant: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [1498] states: ‘If there is a professional

This Q&A assumed that the question relates to the position under the law of England and Wales. Infringement of IP rights is a tortious act. Accordingly, as for other torts, the limitation period will be six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued (see section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980)). Therefore, the limitation period for bringing a copyright infringement claim is six years from the date of the infringement. For a copyright claim accruing under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), there is also a six-year

Section 288 challenges Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) applies to (list abridged for clarity): • orders under TCPA 1990, s 97 (order revoking or modifying planning permission), TCPA 1990, s 102 (orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works) and TCPA 1990, s 221(5) (orders creating special advertisement control areas) • tree preservation orders • orders made pursuant to TCPA 1990, Sch 9, paras 1, 3, 5 or 6 (orders relating to mineral workings) • any decision on an application made to the Secretary of State under TCPA 1990, s 62A (applications made directly to the Secretary of State where the local planning authority (LPA) is in special measures) • any decision on an application referred to the Secretary of State under

Where an individual is in receipt of damages following a personal injury (PI) claim, the court (either the Court of Protection or the court hearing the PI claim) may need to decide whether to approve the establishment of a PI trust or the appointment of a deputy. We refer you to the Practice Note: The Court of Protection versus personal injury trusts, which looks at the pros and cons of deputyships versus PI trusts, and discusses the circumstances in which the Court of Protection is likely to authorise the establishment of a PI trust instead of a deputyship. The key cases in which this issue has been considered are SM v HM and Watt v ABC. In SM v HM, it

Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service, available within Lexis®Library, provides that: ‘Sudden braking by the driver of a lead vehicle may lead to liability dependent on whether the sudden stop was for a negligent reason or a good reason or some other cause over which the driver had no control. In the absence of an explanation, there is an inference that the driver of the lead vehicle will be found to have been negligent. In Elizabeth v MIB a motorcyclist had struck the rear of a van that had braked suddenly. The Court of Appeal held that in such circumstances the van driver had the burden of proving why such heavy braking had been required. Braking suddenly to avoid hitting animals is not generally regarded as 'a good reason' to avoid liability. This

The rules of discontinuance In order to discontinue a claim, under CPR 38.3(1) the claimant is required to file a notice of discontinuance and serve a copy on the other parties. Unless the court’s permission is required to discontinue (in circumstances where an interim injunction has been granted, an undertaking has been given to the court, or there is more than one claimant and they haven’t consented), the notice takes effect when the notice is served on the other party or parties (CPR 38.5(1)). Save for the question of costs or the defendant applying to set the notice aside, service of a notice also brings the proceedings to an end there and then. Applying the above rules, in the vast majority of cases, discontinuance is immediate, but it

Laches is an equitable doctrine which, as a general rule, acts as an equitable bar to equitable claims (for example, in respect of claims for remedies such as specific performance and injunctions) where there has been an unconscionable delay by the claimant in seeking relief. In other words, it acts as a limitation of actions in equity where the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not apply. In the event that the relevant statute in a breach of statutory duty claim provided a limitation bar,

The court fee for an application for divorce is £550, and this fee must accompany the application form, copies for service on all other parties, the marriage certificate and the reconciliation statement (if a solicitor is acting), unless the petitioner is exempted from having to pay the fee. When the court then deals with the petitioner’s application for divorce, the court is also able to deal with the costs of the divorce. Those costs will include the court fee of £550 as well as any solicitors’ fees. When dealing