Search Results

About Sarah Robson Barrister - Black Belt Barrister - Fixed Costs Specialist. Article in Counsel Magazine about being a black belt barrister. Newspaper interview with The Sun regarding Tyson Fury and liability orders. Geographical Areas for in person hearings - based in the East Midlands, she covers Norwich to Southampton, Cardiff to York, Bristol to Liverpool. About Sarah Robson Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Geographical Area Covered The yellow circle shows the courts that Sarah Robson normally works in for in person hearings, although most of her work is still remote so all courts in England & Wales are available. Sarah Robson is closest to courts around the Coventry / Northampton / Milton Keynes / Birmingham / Leicester / Reading area, but also regularly travels to Birkenhead, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol and across London. Sarah will travel further by arrangement. The Sun Newspaper - December 2023 Sarah Robson was recently interviewed by a National Newspaper, The Sun, regarding a specialist court case concerning liability orders for the boxer, Tyson Fury. This article appeared on the front page of The Sun in December 2023. Read the article here: Tyson Fury's next big fight is against the tax man - after champ accused of dodging massive bill | The Sun Counsel Magazine Oct 2023 Lessons learnt: The black belt barrister | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales (counselmagazine.co.uk) Counsel magazine recently ran an article about Sarah Robson being a black belt and a barrister, in particular how each 'skill set' impacts on the other. Alpha Court Chambers Sarah practices at: Alpha Court Chambers alphacourtchambers.co.uk 12 Paddock Close Bidford-on-Avon, Alcester Warwickshire B50 4PJ Professional clients should ring for Sarah's postal address if needed.

Raja v Day & MIB - HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15 - on appeal the court held that you cannot argue a claim 'would have left the portal anyway'. Key Point Cannot argue 'would have left the Portal anyway' Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2015 The Claimant had some difficulty in locating the correct and sent CNFs to a number of incorrect Defendants before finding the correct one. However, instead of sending them a CNF first, the Claimant issued Part 7 proceedings against them. At first instance, the lower court found that the claim would have left the Portal anyway, and declined to restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. However, on appeal, the court found the Claimant had acted unreasonably. The court also held that the lower court had been wrong to find that the claim would have left the Portal anyway. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. This case, along with Tennant v Cottrell , Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network and Hussain v Wardle confirms that a court cannot use hindsight when assessing whether a Claimant has acted unreasonably in breaching the Portal. A court must look at things as they were at the time of the breach. There can be no retrospective justification for an earlier Portal breach. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Hindsight Topic Using Portals

Modhwadia v Modhwadia DJ Atkinson Leicester CC 25.01.14; reviewed DJ Atkinson 29.09.14; on appeal HHJ Hampton 20.01.15 - Failure to give reasons for offering less than the full sum sought on general damages did not justify leaving the Portal Key Point Failure to give reasons for offering less than the full sum sought on general damages did not justify leaving the Portal Modhwadia v Modhwadia DJ Atkinson Leicester CC 25th Jan 2014; reviewed DJ Atkinson 29th Sept 2014; on appeal HHJ Hampton 20th Jan 2015 In this Detailed Assessment the issue was whether the Defendant's failure to explain why they had offered less than the full sum sought for general damages justified the claim in leaving the Portal. On paper provisional assessment the court held that it did. However, on oral review the court held that it was unreasonable, and restricted the Claimant to no more than Portal costs. The Claimant appealed, arguing that when the Defendant failed to comply with the Portal rules, the claim came out of the Portal automatically and thus did not engage CPR 45.24. However the judge disagreed, finding that although there had been a breach of the Protocol by the Defendant, it did not prevent the claim from continuing in the Portal for the rest of Stage 2. It was only after Stage 2 had ended that the Claimant removed the claim from the Portal. That removal was not justified, and the Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Click here for a copy of the first tier oral review judgment. Click here for a copy of the Circuit judge appeal judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Khan v Alliance - HHJ Gosnell, Leeds CC, 1st June 2020. The Judge should not raise a point in Stage 3 which parties would not be permitted to do, on the grounds of fairness, following Mulholland v Hughes. Also a Defendant can only challenge matters in the Portal on fairly limited grounds - Part 7 might be more appropriate. Key Point Judge should not raise a point in Stage 3 which parties would not be permitted to do, on the grounds of fairness and A Defendant can only challenge matters in the Portal on fairly limited grounds - Part 7 might be more appropriate Khan v Alliance HHJ Gosnell, Leeds CC, 1st June 2020 The court considered an appeal from a Stage 3 hearing, where Hussain v EUI had not been raised by either party during Stage 2, thus per Mulholland v Hughes neither party could raise it. However, at the Stage 3 hearing, the judge raised the issue himself and awarded the credit hire claim by reference to loss of earnings. On appeal HHJ Gosnell held that where parties are not permitted to raise an issue, it would not be fair for a judge to do so [40-41]. In keeping with the fact that the Portal gives fairly rough justice, he also found at [30] that the extent to which you can challenge a claim in the Portal is limited and thus some disputes should be brought in Part 7 proceedings. It was not unfair for the Defendant to have to choose between running a claim through the cheaper Portal system with limited challenge, or full Part 7 proceedings with its higher costs. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Mead v British Airways Plc - DJ Moss, Manchester County Court, 15th Jan 2018 - Here the Regional Costs Judge determined that the MOJ Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims. This is despite the portal rules being totally silent re this. Key Point The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims Mead v British Airways Plc DJ Moss, Manchester County Court, 15th Jan 2018 This was a claim brought under the Montreal Convention where damages were settled without the need for proceedings. Costs could not be agreed, and so they went to Detailed Assessment. The Points of Dispute argued the Portal should have been used. The DJ found on provisional assessment that the Portal should not have been used. The Defendant sought oral review of that point. On oral review the court again found that claims brought under the Montreal Convention did not have to be brought under the Portal. The Montreal Convention governs liability of international carriers to air passengers, and it is an exclusive cause of action. Claims under the Montreal Convention are not common law claims, they do not arise out of a breach of duty. They are strict liability claims, and with that comes some limits, including for example the total amount of damages which can be claimed and which types of injuries are covered. The Montreal Convention does not create any duties. Therefore the Portal does not apply and costs would not be limited. The judge noted the circumstances would have given rise to a common law or other breach of duty, but held that was immaterial - there was no duty of care created by the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention was the exclusive remedy. I am grateful to Peter Bland of Scott Rees for sending me a copy of this case. This case, together with the McKendry v BA case, whilst not binding, seems to confirm that Montreal Convention claims do not proceed through the Portal. At first blush this may seem surprising, especially given that there is no specific exclusion of Montreal Convention claims in the Portal protocol, and the general unwillingness to implied exceptions to fixed costs. However, once one considers properly the nature of Montreal Convention claims; strict liability claims arising out of international agreement, rather than breach of duty claims, then it is clear to see it does not match with the Portal Protocol. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Bushell v Parry HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 15th March 2015. Departing from Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh. SINCE OVERTURNED BY MADDOCKS V LYNE. Shows the importance of pleadings. The issue was whether the Claimant was bound by the agreements reached on individual heads of loss in the Portal, but these were not pleaded in the defence. Held the Claimant was not bound by individual heads of loss agreed in the Portal., but if wrong on that then the Defence did not plead the agreement. Key Point Where defence silent re Portal agreement on individual heads of loss, parties not bound by those agreements (departing from Bewicke-Copley ) SINCE OVERTURNED BY MADDOCKS V LYNE Bushell v Parry HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 15th March 2015 This claim had started in the Portal where some heads of loss were agreed, but then the claim left the Portal and Part 7 proceedings were issued. The Defendants put in a Defence putting the Claimant to and said nothing about some of the heads of loss having already been agreed in the Portal. The issue was whether the Claimant was bound by the agreements reached on individual heads of loss in the Portal. Most significantly that included personal injury, without which the Part 7 claim would have been in the small claims track. The judge found that the Claimant was not bound by individual heads of loss in the Portal. He said if he was wrong on that then the defence which acted as though everything was and had not pleaded the Portal agreement, Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh distinguished. Please note this case has now been overturned by Maddocks v Lyne , a case which HHJ Gregory himself gave permission to appeal on. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point

Williams v Secretary of State [2018] EWCA Civ 852. The Court of Appeal famously held that where CPR 45.24 could not be used, but the court could get to the same result otherwise by use of CPR 44. Key Point A Court can restrict to Portal costs under CPR 44 generally following a Portal breach, not just under CPR 45.24(2) Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 Here the court considered a case where CPR 45.24 was not available as Part 7 proceedings had not been issued. The court found that they could reach the same result via a different route, namely by the use of CPR 44.11. Court of Appeal noted it was hardly unusual for the CPRs to provide for two concurrent routes to the same result. This is exactly as the SCCO found in Davies v Greenway and Tunbridge Wells CC found on appeal in Brown v Ezeugwa . Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point Key Point The bar for exceptional circumstances is a high one and The basket of cases against which one assesses exceptionality is all those cases which start in the Portal and then leave Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB) The lower court had erred in finding that the bar was low. It was in fact a very high bar. At [43] the court held: "As the House of Lords said in R v Soneji, an expression such as “exceptional circumstances” must take its colour from the setting in which it appears. The setting in which it appears informs the Court whether a strict approach to exceptional is or is not warranted. " The second question was whether the Master was right in defining the ‘basket’ of cases compared with which a case needs to have “exceptional circumstances”. At [47] the court held "It is clear that the basket of cases against which a case must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” is the type of cases that have exited the Portal and are subject to the Part IIIA regime." The case was remitted back to Master Gordon-Saker to be assessed again. However, no judgment appears anywhere I can find, so it does seem likely the case then settled. If anyone knows any differently, please let me know. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Harris v Brown HHJ Davey QC, Bradford CC, 18th June 2019 - An interesting judicial difference of opinion was formed in this case on whether the Portal is an entirely stand-alone code, or whether common law doctrines can apply. Here the judge found that common law mistake did apply. Key Point Common law Mistake does apply in the MOJ Portal Protocol where offeree knows of mistake when accepts Harris v Brown HHJ Davey QC, Bradford CC, 18th June 2019 An interesting judicial difference of opinion was formed in this case on whether the Portal is an entirely stand-alone code, or whether common law doctrines can apply. Here the judge found that common law mistake did apply. Unfortunately the judge was mis-informed by both counsel that in Draper v Newport and Fitton v Ageas, the party accepting the offer did not know that a mistake had been made. The judge thus distinguished those two cases and decided that common law mistake did apply. It is interesting to speculate over whether the decision would have been any different had the judge been given the correct details. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. Click here for a copy of the refusal decision. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Main Index Topic Index

Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2015 At first instance, the lower court found that the claim would have left the Portal anyway, and declined to restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. However, on appeal, the court found the Claimant had acted unreasonably. The court also held that the lower court had been wrong to find that the claim would have left the Portal anyway. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 2nd Mar 2015 The Claimant had some difficulty in locating the correct and sent CNFs to a number of incorrect Defendants before finding the correct one. However, instead of sending them a CNF first, the Claimant issued Part 7 proceedings against them. At first instance, the lower court found that the claim would have left the Portal anyway, and declined to restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. However, on appeal, the court found the Claimant had acted unreasonably. The court also held that the lower court had been wrong to find that the claim would have left the Portal anyway. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. This case, along with Tennant v Cottrell , Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network and Hussain v Wardle confirms that a court cannot use hindsight when assessing whether a Claimant has acted unreasonably in breaching the Portal. A court must look at things as they were at the time of the breach. There can be no retrospective justification for an earlier Portal breach. Click here for a copy of the judgment Click here for a PDF copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

This is a Title 02 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index