CILEx L6 Civil Litigation Practice 2

Question 1

What is the court's approach to costs budgeting under CPR Part 3 Section II, and what is the effect of an approved or agreed budget?

Accepted Answer

The court manages litigation costs by approving budgets, and at assessment the court will not depart from the approved or agreed budget unless there is good reason to do so, as established in CPR r.3.18

Answer

Under CPR r.3.12-3.18, parties in multi-track cases (except those in the Chancery Division or Commercial Court where otherwise directed) must file and exchange costs budgets. The court reviews and approves budgets at a costs management conference. Under r.3.18, when assessing costs on the standard basis, the court will not depart from the approved or agreed budget unless satisfied there is good reason to do so (Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry [2017]).

Question 2

In relation to expert evidence, what restrictions does CPR Part 35 impose and when will the court permit each party to instruct their own expert?

Accepted Answer

Expert evidence is restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve proceedings; the court may direct a single joint expert and will only permit separate experts where it is necessary to do so, considering the overriding objective

Answer

CPR r.35.1 provides that expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required. Under r.35.4, no party may call an expert or put an expert's report in evidence without the court's permission. Rule 35.7 empowers the court to direct a single joint expert (SJE). Separate experts are permitted where the complexity or value of the case requires it, but the court actively manages expert evidence to ensure proportionality.

Question 3

What are the grounds for appealing a decision of a first instance judge, and what test does the appeal court apply?

Accepted Answer

Permission to appeal is required and will be granted only where the court considers the appeal has a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard; the appeal court will only allow an appeal where the decision was wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity

Answer

Under CPR r.52.6, permission to appeal is required (with limited exceptions). Permission is granted where the appeal has a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason (r.52.6(1)). Under r.52.21(3), the appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision was (a) wrong, or (b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Appeals are reviews, not rehearings, unless the court considers a rehearing necessary (r.52.21(1)).

Question 4

What is the effect of a 'without prejudice' communication in civil litigation, and what are the exceptions to the without prejudice rule?

Accepted Answer

Without prejudice communications made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute are inadmissible as evidence of admissions, but exceptions include proving a concluded settlement (Tomlin order), rectification, estoppel, undue influence or fraud, and determining costs under Part 36

Answer

The without prejudice rule (Unilever plc v Procter & Gamble Co [2000]) protects communications made in a genuine attempt to settle from being used as evidence of admissions. Exceptions recognised in Unilever include: proving a concluded settlement, estoppel, rectification, showing undue influence/perjury/fraud, explaining delay, and costs assessment. Both parties may also waive privilege jointly. The rule applies to oral and written communications.

Question 5

Under the Limitation Act 1980, what is the limitation period for a claim in negligence where the damage is latent and not discoverable at the time it occurred?

Accepted Answer

Under s.14A, the claimant has either six years from the date of accrual or three years from the date of knowledge of the material facts, whichever expires later, subject to a longstop of fifteen years from the negligent act under s.14B

Answer

The Latent Damage Act 1986 inserted ss.14A and 14B into the Limitation Act 1980. Section 14A provides an alternative period of three years from the claimant's date of knowledge where the basic six-year period has expired. The date of knowledge is when the claimant first knew (or ought reasonably to have known) the material facts. Section 14B imposes an absolute longstop of fifteen years from the date of the negligent act or omission.

CILEx Level 6 Practice Test

CILEx Level 6 Practice Test

CILEx L6 Civil Litigation Practice 2