![Kabul express movie online](https://knopkazmeya.com/6.png)
![wordrake vs stylewriter wordrake vs stylewriter](https://support.content.office.net/en-us/media/1c492c69-88b1-432b-9d30-e81064e19406.jpg)
The judge may turn to their skeleton to explain the whole case.Īppeal judges keep telling us they value a skeleton that tells them, in their limited reading time, what the case is about and the essential points counsel wish to make. Those responding to an over-long skeleton are therefore wise if they refuse to answer every point, keeping their own submissions shorter and clearer than ever. What could turn the gold to ashes quicker than a skeleton that annoys, tires or frustrates the judge? James Hunt J, in an article for Counsel, called this “a negligent own goal” ( The Anatomy Lesson, February 2002, pp 18-19). Leggatt LJ told us “Although no records have been kept, it is comparatively uncommon for members of the Court to change their minds about whether to dismiss or allow an appeal, once they have read the skeleton arguments” ( The future of the oral tradition in the Court of Appeal, (1995) 14 CJQ 11). Meanwhile, advocates should be much more concerned not to annoy the judge.Ī skeleton argument is a golden opportunity for advocacy. An advocate whose skeleton was over the limit could be made to pay a £500 deposit to lodge it, the same deposit candidates pay to stand in a general election, repayable only if the court certifies the skeleton was useful (or if the appeal ends without a hearing). Perhaps a rule change in the Court of Appeal might force advocates to honour its 25-page limit or ask the court for its comments. But a public reprimand is unlikely to become routine and the court’s previous threats have not fixed the problem. Maybe the threat, made in a published judgment, is the best remedy currently available – a public embarrassment to the advocate and the strongest possible hint to waive their fee for the skeleton. They are too remote, hit-or-miss, and directed primarily against the client, who is not the offender. Maybe costs are not an effective sanction for poor advocacy. A search on Westlaw for “skeleton”, “prolix” and “costs” reveals a vexatious litigant in person ordered to pay indemnity costs ( R (Gray) v Bristol Crown Court EWHC 2442 (Admin)), a barrister’s “deplorable” advocacy reported to the Legal Services Commission ( Gahie v Home Secretary EWCA Civ 611), but no costs orders against competent barristers. Judgments citing Mylward’s case, or actually imposing a costs penalty, are not. In recent years, judgments complaining of long skeletons, and threatening costs penalties, are common (see Khader v Aziz EWCA Civ 716, Midgulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien EWCA Civ 66, Tombstone Ltd v Raja EWCA Civ 1444, In re X and Y (Bundles) EWHC 2058 (Fam)). Adjusting for inflation is not easy, but one estimate, based on the price of gold, puts the fine at over £12,500 and the costs at just under £10,000.
![wordrake vs stylewriter wordrake vs stylewriter](https://hunterae.com/wp-content/uploads/images/pro-display-xdr-presentation-download-videohive-28600439-free-hunterae-com-1.jpg)
He was also paraded around the courts with the offending document around his neck. Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd v HMRC EWCA Civ 578, Jackson LJ (whose comments were endorsed by Lord Dyson MR), Lloyd Jones LJ, Floyd LJ.Īikens LJ cited the case of Richard Mylward, the prolix pleader, who in 1595 was fined £10 and ordered to pay another £8, 8s 4d in costs ( Mylward v Weldon (1596) Tothill 102, EWHC (Ch) 1). Lost the appeal, but the court would have disallowed some or all of the skeleton’s costs if it had won. Standard Bank Plc v Via Mat International Ltd EWCA Civ 490, Moore-Bick LJ, Aikens LJ, David Richards J.Ĥ0 pages, 113 footnotes and still failed to summarise the facts and arguments deployed at the hearing. The respondent’s argument was only 23 pages the hearing lasted a day. The parties agreed costs, including the amount, so no order was made. No one asked for their costs of producing these skeleton arguments, but the judges had expressly threatened to refuse any such request.ĩ3 pages: won the appeal but the court criticised the skeleton as prolix and threatened to deduct its costs. Aikens LJ called overlong pleadings and skeletons “the bane of commercial litigation” Jackson LJ and the Master of the Rolls called this a “widespread malaise” and invited all advocates with an appeal pending to review their skeletons with a view to avoiding costs sanctions. These were deployed not by incompetents but by experienced QCs in big commercial cases. In May 2013, seven appellate judges, including the Master of the Rolls, condemned skeleton arguments exceeding the 25-page maximum allowed in the Court of Appeal (see box, Vital statistics).
![Kabul express movie online](https://knopkazmeya.com/6.png)