*/
“Mild rebukes to counsel” and “gentle comments in judgments” are failing to get the message across that too many skeleton arguments remain “poor quality” and of “excessive length”, Lord Justice Jackson has warned.
Delivering the public reprimand in Inplayer Ltd & Anor v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511, Jackson LJ said that in spite of previous judicial protests and the threat of costs penalties “so far, unfortunately, this message has failed to reach the profession...with regret, I must speak more bluntly.”
“As anyone who has drafted skeleton arguments knows, the task is not rocket science. It just requires a few minutes clear thought and planning before you start. A good skeleton argument (of which we receive many) is a real help to judges when they are pre-reading the (usually voluminous) bundles. A bad skeleton argument simply adds to the paper jungle through which judges must hack their way in an effort to identify the issues and the competing arguments.
“A good skeleton argument is a real aid to the court during and after the hearing. A bad skeleton argument may be so unhelpful that the court simply proceeds on the basis of the grounds of appeal and whatever counsel says on the day.
“The appellant’s skeleton argument in this case does not comply with the rules,” he continued. “It is 35 pages of rambling prolixity through which the reader must struggle to track down the relevant facts, issues and arguments.”
The successful appellant, represented by the Law Society Excellence Awards Solicitor Advocate of the Year 2014, Adam Tear, was entitled to costs but could not recover the costs of the skeleton argument, he ruled.
“As anyone who has drafted skeleton arguments knows, the task is not rocket science. It just requires a few minutes clear thought and planning before you start. A good skeleton argument (of which we receive many) is a real help to judges when they are pre-reading the (usually voluminous) bundles. A bad skeleton argument simply adds to the paper jungle through which judges must hack their way in an effort to identify the issues and the competing arguments.
“A good skeleton argument is a real aid to the court during and after the hearing. A bad skeleton argument may be so unhelpful that the court simply proceeds on the basis of the grounds of appeal and whatever counsel says on the day.
“The appellant’s skeleton argument in this case does not comply with the rules,” he continued. “It is 35 pages of rambling prolixity through which the reader must struggle to track down the relevant facts, issues and arguments.”
The successful appellant, represented by the Law Society Excellence Awards Solicitor Advocate of the Year 2014, Adam Tear, was entitled to costs but could not recover the costs of the skeleton argument, he ruled.
“Mild rebukes to counsel” and “gentle comments in judgments” are failing to get the message across that too many skeleton arguments remain “poor quality” and of “excessive length”, Lord Justice Jackson has warned.
Delivering the public reprimand in Inplayer Ltd & Anor v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511, Jackson LJ said that in spite of previous judicial protests and the threat of costs penalties “so far, unfortunately, this message has failed to reach the profession...with regret, I must speak more bluntly.”
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
