James qualified as a Solicitor in April 2025, specialising in Civil Litigation at a Solihull based high street firm.

During his time as a Trainee Solicitor, James spent time in the Property team and Wills & Probate team, which has enabled him to have a good understanding on litigious property matters and contentious probate claims.

James understands the financial and emotional pressure of litigation and seeks to make the process as straightforward and clear as possible, whilst obtaining the best result for his clients.

In his spare time, James enjoys watching and playing all sport, but especially football. He is a Liverpool supporter and tries to get up to Anfield when he can. James also plays hockey for his local club, having played for Warwickshire when he was younger.

Welcome to the team James from all at BTTJ!

The post New member of our Litigation Team appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Before joining us, Manjit was a Civil & Commercial Litigation Solicitor at a local Warwickshire law firm, and prior to that a Partner, and later a Consultant Senior Solicitor, in charge of the Litigation department at a firm in Birmingham.

Manjit qualified as a Solicitor in 1990 and brings a wealth of legal experience in Litigation to Brindley Twist Tafft and James.

Manjit has a specialist interest in disputes involving property ownership, validity of Wills, estates and inheritance. A number of these claims have risen in the family contexts. . Inheritance disputes may arise when the validity of the Will is in question and also when an individual feels someone who has died has not made enough provision in their estate for them.

Manjit has considerable expertise in Contentious Probate area of law having dealt with numerous claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and around the validity of Wills arising from matters such as undue influence, forgery and lack of testamentary capacity.

Manjit often acts in these situations for children or disabled and/or vulnerable adults.

Manjit has experience and has represented individuals and business in connection with large money claims, has acted for shareholders in the protection of their minority interests, for company directors facing personal claims, for partners in partnership disputes, for Claimants in professional negligence claims, advised on employment Settlement Agreements, for Landlords and tenants of business premises and advised in all manner of insolvency and contractual disputes.

Manjit is fluent in Punjabi and is able to read documents written in the Punjabi language and can write in Punjabi if requited. Manjit is also able to communicate in Hindi.

The post BTTJ Welcomes Senior Litigation Solicitor appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Martin joined BTTJ in July 2025 as a Litigation Assistant.

He started his legal career in October 2019, working for a local firm in Kenilworth within Family Law. Martin moved into Civil Litigation in 2021 & has worked at another local law firm before joining us.

Martin mainly deals with Landlord and Tenant matters alongside Debt Recovery, but can also assist with all Civil Litigation matters.

Martin is currently working towards becoming a CILEx Paralegal with CILEx Law School and is an Affiliate Member of The Chartered Institute Of Legal Executives.

Welcome to the firm Martin, from all at BTTJ!

The post New member of our Litigation team appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Litigation claims in cases of professional negligence and breaches of contract are among the areas set to be governed by the new fixed recoverable costs regime which is set to come into effect from October 1^st this year.

The new changes to the Civil Procedure Rules mean people pursuing civil claims could be left out of pocket or even find it difficult altogether to bring their case to court as claims of up to £100,000 are less commercially attractive for legal firms to pursue.

Each case will be judged on its complexity, with the more complex cases coming with higher costs and in turn having a significant impact on both recoverable and payable costs.

So even if they are successful the client could still be left with little or no money.

Proceedings issued before October 1^st will not be affected by the changes.

Legal firms will look at whether cases are even worth taking on.

Fixed costs have been in existence for a long time but are creeping into more areas of the law.

After these changes legal teams will have to look at the complexity of each case, and how far into the proceedings any dispute is settled, which will then calculate how much a claimant is entitled to recover for their legal costs.

Some firms may only take on a cast iron case – although you could argue nothing in litigation is ever cast iron – but if there is a good case, they could take it on as a no win no fee and they would then take a percentage of the money awarded. However, most firms, we imagine, will continue to charge clients on a time spent basis as usual, which will mean the clients are out of pocket on costs on conclusion, even if they’re successful. Proportionality is key.

Litigation is highly risky. It can depend on the judge on the day, and how well your client performs whilst giving evidence. . You could produce a brilliant witness statement but then your client simply does not perform well on the stand on cross-examination under pressure. These are risk factors which prevents any law firm from giving a cast iron guarantee on winning a legal case and reduces the number of solicitors who are willing to take on cases on a no win no fee basis.

With a steep rise in the number of civil disputes reaching a court room over the past five years, we reiterate the importance of the parties being able to demonstrate their efforts in attempting to resolve their differences before issuing proceedings.

People have become far more litigious, especially in the last five years, and this is not looked upon favourably by a judge. We would always advise people with a dispute to speak to the other party with a view to resolving their differences, or at least coming to some arrangement, before issuing civil proceedings, which could include mediation.

The post Shake up of costs regime may leave civil claimants out of pocket appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The company, (our client), weren’t a big corporate business with a large insurance company behind them – this was now a small family run business, that business having been dormant for decades. 

The company installed drylining on large council building projects in the midlands during the 70’s.  The Claimant’s claim was that, whilst the company had not used materials containing asbestos, other workers from different trades using asbestos materials had come into the same vicinity as him when the weather was wet.  The Claimant had worked for several other employees, but it was only our client whose company had not been wound up and to whom the Claimant could direct any claim.

The employee’s family (who had sadly since died) were represented by Irwin Mitchell.

This wasn’t a case where there was a significant amount of evidence given the historical nature of the claim – the employee being employed by our client for only a small number of sporadic years in the 1970’s and who had worked as a plasterer for many other employers.

Our client firmly denied that the Claimant had ever been exposed to asbestos and we robustly defended the claim on their behalf.

Firstly, our client as the Defendant, had to show ‘just cause’ as to why they should be allowed to defend the claim and judgment not entered automatically, as is often the case in these types of claims.

That hurdle was successfully overcome and we set about obtaining evidence. 

One of the main obstacles in this case, was that the period in question was some 40 years ago.  There was little by way of documentation.  The Claimant obtained expert witness evidence, which was met by our like evidence, but it was the lay witness evidence that won the case; statements from people who worked on these types of sites at the time, who despite being in their late 70’s and 80’s and had long since retired, were able to recount with detail and authority, their account of the working practices of the time.

The matter went to a three-day trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, the King’s Bench Division in February 2023.  The matter was before Dexter Dias KC, a Deputy High Court Judge and the claim was successfully defended, the claim being dismissed.

The manner in which the Judge applied his reasoning is fully set out in his judgment.  The mechanism in which he sets out how he tackled his decision making in finding of fact is robustly and methodically set out.  It is likely to stand as a precedent no doubt will be a case that is cited for many years to come, as to what a Claimant must prove for a claim to be successful in a claim of this nature.

This wasn’t a case won by experts, indeed the Judge considered that both parties’ expert evidence didn’t have any real relevance in this case; it boiled down to the strength of the witness evidence –  what people could recall at the time.   This a stark reminder to all litigants that all else aside, the chief evidence remains that of witness evidence and the gravitas of that should never be underestimated.  Neither should the hurdle of burden of proof!  This is key for both Claimants and Defendants.

Lynette Walsh and Kerry Hudson, who conducted the claim on behalf of the Defendants, were delighted and proud to be able to accomplish such a successful outcome on behalf of their clients.

The full Judgement can be found here:- Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd [2023] EWHC 382 (KB) (24 February 2023) (bailii.org)

If you require any assistance with regards to Personal Injury either as a claimant or defandant please contact our expert team for advice.

The post When witness evidence is the most important evidence: BTTJ successfully defend claim at the High Court of Justice appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Where there is a dispute about a boundary it is usually because someone has erected a wall, fence or even building in a position where the parties disagree as to whose land it has been built on. The parties must live next to one another for as long as they will live in that property so it’s crucial any dispute is resolved at the earliest opportunity.

Boundaries can be unclear. Sometime encroachments are substantial, but more often than not, disproportionate to the value of the land. Frequently, decisions from the Court can mean that neither party are happy, and there are instances when neither party has been awarded what they wanted!

Judges do not like neighbour and/or boundary disputes so early resolution is recommended. 

Where to start

The Boundary Disputes Protocol is the first place to start. This is a non-binding pre-action protocol developed to encourage parties to work together and amicably at resolving a boundary dispute early.

 Most people will firstly look at the Deeds to their property and see where the boundaries lie. Unfortunately, Land Registry plans are based on ordnance survey maps and are deemed to show only what are described as “general boundaries”. In such cases the exact line of the boundary is left undetermined, irrespective of what appears to be shown on the title plans.

You would need to go further and look at the pre-registration Deeds to the property, such as the first Conveyance when the land was initially divided and sold off. When the Court considers the Conveyance, it will adhere to various principals, such as what a reasonable person would have understood it to mean. The Topographical features of the land at the time of the Conveyance are also often determinative of the position of the boundary. In addition, there may be historical features physically still on the ground at the property, such as chicken wire fencing, which may assist.

Adverse possession

Parties also need to be familiar with the principals of adverse possession, which can affect the boundaries over time, which could mean they are different to what they were at the time of the earliest Conveyance.

In respect of unregistered land, a “squatter” may have acquired title to their neighbour’s land if they have been in exclusive possession of that land for 12 years. In respect of registered land, a neighbour could apply for adverse possession of land if they have been in possession, for at least ten years of land adjoining a general boundary and the squatter “reasonably believed” that they owned the land over that time.

Expert surveyor

It is vital that a good land surveyor is instructed to provide an expert opinion on a boundary dispute. Poor reports obtained cheaply can result in further extensive legal costs going forward because parties become confused. A report should be obtained by a specialist-chartered land surveyor and should involve a detailed plan with dimensions.

Costs

Quite often, boundary disputes involve parties that are very entrenched in their positions, and its often difficult to negotiate, unless the neighbours have the benefit of good legal advice. This means that if a boundary dispute is litigated to trial in the Court or the Tribunal, it can cost tens of thousands of pounds.

Even if you are successful at trial, Judges have a general discretion on costs. This has meant that a judge has not awarded a successful party their costs who has either exaggerated or inflated the importance of the claim. Quite often, a Judge will also make “no order as to costs” which means no one gets their costs paid by the opposition.

It is entirely up to the Judge as to who is awarded costs, and how much, and conduct plays a big part in this.

Making offers at early stages and doing everything to resolve the dispute early, which could involve a mediation, will always put parties in a better position on costs at conclusion of the claim.

Please contact us for more information.

The post Boundary Disputes appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

In the case, the Claimant had brought an action against the Defendant as they had a camera on their shed and a doorbell system from a well-established company which links to their smart phone.

It was revealed that the doorbell system showed not only the defendant’s own driveway but also the Claimant’s house and garden whilst the camera placed on the Defendant’s shed was capable of displaying images of the Claimant moving around their property.

It was decided by the Judge that the audio data collected by the devices had been processed unlawfully (although it was not possible to turn off the audio recording facility of the camera until an update for the software became available later).

The Judge stated that “Personal Data may have been captured from people who are not even aware that the device is there, or that it records and processes audio and personal data” and therefore it was a breach of UK data laws.

Although measures may have been taken to try to ensure privacy, the court stated that “If an activation zone is disabled so that the camera does not activate to film by movement in that area, activation by movement in one of the other non-disabled activation zones will cause the camera to film across the whole field of view”.

This decision has made the position very clear, if you are using CCTV then you must take into account and respect the privacy wishes regarding your neighbours and take measures to minimise any surveillance that might affect them.

If you have any concerns or are involved in a dispute with a neighbour over their use of cameras and other recording devices, do not hesitate to contact BTTJ today, our Litigation Team will be happy to help.

The post Development in Data protection law: Is your Neighbour’s doorbell and camera compliant? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Civil Litigation &Personal injury claims: changes to funding

The way in which claims are funded by clients is expected to change. In recent years a popular way of funding claims has been through Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) which are more commonly known as “no win no fee agreements”. CFAs are attractive to clients who cannot to afford to pay legal fees “up front” on an hourly rate basis. Under a CFA if the case is not successful the client does not pay at all. If the case wins the solicitor recovers their fee from the losing opponent. After the Event Insurance (ATE) is also available to cover clients in the case of a loss. ATE insures clients against their opponent’s costs, and the premium is sought from the losing opponent.

However the use of CFAs is expected to decline in the future because from 1 April 2013 successful claimants will not be entitled to recover success fees and ATE premiums from their opponent in civil litigation and personal injury cases. The good news is that the changes will not be retrospective; CFAs and ATE policies entered into before 1 April 2013 remain subject to the current favourable rules around recoverability.

What does this mean for claims brought after 1 April 2013?

From 1 April 2013 it is expected that instead of using CFAs that claimants in civil litigation and personal injury claims will be able to enter into US style Damages Based Agreements (DBAs) to fund personal injury claims. These are contingency type agreements where an agreed percentage of the damages, up to 25%, are paid to the solicitor if the case is successful. The Government are still clarifying the use of DBAs.

In the meantime, the CFA/ATE combination has been tested through real cases over a number of years and is still available. It offers a genuinely cost-efficient way of managing litigation costs. Therefore for clients who would prefer to fund cases with a CFA and ATE, they should take immediate legal advice now before the changes come into force on 1 April 2013.

CFAs are expected to still be available for insolvency cases until 2015.

Changes to the small claims track: Claimants are urged to review potential claims valued between £5,000 – £10,000.

Changes to the small claims track threshold will come into force on 1 April 2013. Claimants need to be aware of these changes now because the threshold for claims allocated to the small claims track will be raised. This is important because parties are not usually allowed to recover their own legal costs on the small claims track, even if they win their claim.

At the moment civil claims which are valued below £5,000 are usually allocated to the small claims track. However from 1 April 2013 the small claims track limit will be raised from £5,000 to £10,000. The limit may be raised to £15,000 in the future.

Therefore any individuals or businesses who think that they may have a claim which could fall within these brackets should take legal advice now whilst there is a still a chance of being able to recover their legal costs if the claim is successful. Businesses, in particular, are urged to review their books now and to focus on any outstanding debts that are £5,000 +.

For further commentary on the small claims track and a culture shift towards the way in which courts may be tougher on litigants in person who do not comply with court rules see:

http://www.bttj.com/news/item/77/an-opponent-of-a-litigant-in-person-is-entitled-to-assume-finality-without-expecting-excessive-indulgence-to-be-extended-to-the

Improvements to debt recovery & enforcement: charging orders

The number of charging order applications being made is likely to increase. Since 1 October 2012 a creditor has been entitled to apply for a charging order even where an instalment plan is in place and that plan is being complied with.

For more information on enforcing a charging order by way of an application for an order for sale please see:

http://www.bttj.com/news/item/80/orders-for-sale-faqs

The post Significant changes to the Civil Claims process and litigation funding in 2013: What you need to know & why you may need to take urgent action. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Practitioners, and their paying clients, will be familiar with the frustration felt at the, sometimes seemingly excessive, leniency Judges can show towards people acting for themselves. This can lead to increased costs for clients who choose to instruct solicitors, which can itself lead to problems where the reason the person is representing themselves is an economic one; where a party cannot afford to pay for a solicitor to represent them, they will often be unable to pay the other side’s legal costs if they lose.

However, practitioners and their clients should be comforted by the recent Court of Appeal finding in the case of Tinkler and Another v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289.

The case concerned a long running dispute between the Defendant and his former employer. The appeal centred on a decision made pursuant to CPR 39.3(5) to allow an application by the Defendant to set aside a judgment entered against him at a trial for which he did not attend.

The test the Court had to apply was three fold. To grant the application, it had to find that the applicant;

(a) acted promptly when he found that the court had exercised its power … to enter judgment or make an order against him;

(b) had a good reason for not attending the trial; and

(c) had a reasonable prospect of success at the trial.

Between the trial and the time the application was made, a period of 20 months had passed. The Claimant submitted that this period could in no way be characterised as prompt. The Defendant attributed this delay to two issues; his mental health and his ignorance of the fact that he could apply to have the judgment set aside.

The judge who heard the application determined that he was at a disadvantage due to his mental health and also due to his acting in person. She therefore found this was a ‘special case’ and she allowed the application despite the long delay.

On appeal, the Court found that whilst there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an assessment of promptness, they would only operate close to the margins. The Court stated that ‘an opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence to be extended to the litigant in person’ and noted that ‘on any view, the fact that a litigant in person “did not really understand” or “did not appreciate” the procedural courses open to him for months does not entitle him to extra indulgence.’

The Judge went on to state that ‘even if one factors in (the Defendant’s) health problems, the evidence shows that between April and July 2010 he was active in this litigation. The fact that, if properly advised, he would or might have made a different application then cannot avail him now. That would be to take sensitivity to the difficulties faced by a litigant in person too far.’

Accordingly, the Court found that it was not open to the original Judge to find that the Defendant had acted promptly in making his application and his application must therefore be dismissed.

Whilst solicitors and their clients may take comfort from this judgment, it should also serve as a warning to would be litigants in person. According to paragraph 7 pf the judgment, ‘On 27 August 2009 a bankruptcy order was made against (the Defendant) following his failure to satisfy various orders for costs in this litigation.’ If the Courts are to be less lenient moving forward, litigants need to be aware of their costs liabilities; they may have not incurred their own legal fees, but that does not prevent them having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose.

The post ‘An opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence top be extended to the litigant in person.’ appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Stage 1: Commencing a claim

In most cases the parties should take steps to try and resolve their dispute before a claim is commenced at court. Once those steps have been followed then a claim may proceed at court by issuing proceedings and paying the appropriate court fee. A claim is issued by lodging with the Court the claim form and particulars of claim, setting out the Claimant’s case. These documents must be served on the Defendant within four months of the claim being issued.

The defendant usually has 14 days to acknowledge receipt of the claim form and particulars of claim. If they file an acknowledgment they will have 28 days in which to file and serve a defence.

Stage 2: Allocation & Directions

Shortly after the defence has been filed and served the parties will need to complete Allocation Questionnaires and send these to the Court. The information in the Allocation Questionnaires will enable the judge to decide how the court’s resources should be used by allocating the claim to either the Small Claims Track; the Fast Track or the Multi Track. The Judge will also make an order setting out what steps need to be followed to bring the case to trial; these are known as Directions.

In more complex cases the Court may list a case management hearing to take place in order to consider what the issues in dispute are and consequently what Directions should be made.

Stage 3: Disclosure

The Court will order the parties to disclose relevant documents to each other at the disclosure stage. This usually takes place around 4 weeks after the case has been allocated.

Each party must carry out a thorough search of all documents that are relevant to the Claim, even if those documents are harmful to that party’s case. The search should include electronic documents. This is a very important part of the litigation process and there is a high duty on each side to ensure that it is carried out properly. There may be sanctions against a party who does not carry out this process properly and therefore legal advice should be obtained.

Once the search has been carried out then each party should set out on a List of Documents the description of all documents that are relevant to the claim that are either in the party’s possession or control or were once in that party’s possession or control. The List must be supported by a signed Statement of Truth.

Each party usually has 7 days from being served with the List of Documents to ask to inspect those documents referred to.

Stage 4: Witness Statements

About 6 weeks after disclosure has been completed, the parties will usually exchange witness statements. These statements should set out the facts as the witness honestly believes them. The statement is the evidence-in-chief of that witness. A party cannot usually call a witness to trial to give evidence unless their statement has been disclosed to the other side at the appropriate time.

The statement will need to be signed with a supporting statement of truth.

Stage 5: Trial

Preparing for Trial

Each party will need to complete and lodge a pre-trial checklist with the Court. The pre-trial checklist will confirm whether all Directions have been complied with and whether further Directions are required. It will also confirm the availability of witnesses and legal representatives which will enable the court to set a trial date, if it has not already done so. An estimate of costs and trial timetable are usually included within the checklist. A case summary may also need to be prepared.

If a barrister is instructed to represent you at the trial then a brief to counsel will need to be prepared. It may also be necessary to have a number of case discussions with counsel, known as “conferences”.

Between 3 – 7 days before the trial date the Claimant will need to file and serve a trial bundle. The trial bundle will contain key documents such as the claim form, particulars of claim, defence, disclosure documents with List of Documents, witness statements and court orders. The content of the bundle should be agreed with the other side wherever possible.

Trial

Depending on a number of factors such as the complexity of the case and whether Directions have been complied with on time, the trial of the matter will usually take place about 9 months after the case has been allocated. The duration of the trial also depends on a number of factors, such as the number of witnesses being called. Usually small claims track cases are listed for a half day trial; a fast track trial case may be listed for one day. A multi track case may be listed for a number of days or even weeks.

At the trial the judge will hear submissions (i.e. legal arguments) from both sides and witnesses will be called to give evidence.

At the end of the trial the judge will make a judgment. In some cases, usually those which involve complex issues, the judge will reserve judgment until a later date. The judge will also deal with the issue of costs at this stage.

The post Guide to litigation: what happens when a case goes to court? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.