The High Court recently found that a tribunal's admission of a simple computational error, and its refusal to correct it, was a serious irregularity that caused substantial injustice. Based on this, the court remitted an arbitration award back to the tribunal for correction. This is an interesting case; it is rare for Section 68 challenges to be successful and even rarer for an English court judge to find that there has been a serious irregularity that caused or would cause substantial injustice in such a straightforward manner.
The High Court of England and Wales recently refused a claimant permission to rely on a witness statement of one its in-house lawyers, prepared during an ongoing trial, and call that witness to give oral evidence during the trial. The new witness's evidence produced during trial could not be relied on due to its inherent unreliability and the risk that it would be tailored to the state of the party's current case. Parties should always consider what evidence is required to support their case at an early stage.
The High Court recently determined that an application to admit witness evidence outside the directions timetable should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under Civil Procedure Rule 3.9. The decision suggests that the court may imply a sanction for policy reasons, even where there was no intention on the part of the rulemaker or judge to impose a sanction for a breach.
A recent Court of Appeal decision determined that a Part 36 offer does not alter the status of 'subject to contract' protection in solicitors' correspondence when settling a dispute. This decision reassures lawyers that they can continue to conduct subject to contract negotiations on behalf of their clients without any undue risk of being bound by what is discussed. It is also a useful reminder of the consent order's significance in conclusively settling negotiations which are expressed to be subject to contract.
BHP has successfully applied to strike out 200,000 claims as an abuse of process. Had the judge not struck out the claims, he would have stayed proceedings on jurisdictional grounds under Article 34 of the EU Recast Brussels Regulation and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. While the significant nature of the proceedings would have raised England's profile as a forum for group litigation, this was ultimately not a case which fell within the parameters under which the court can accept jurisdiction.