Masood Ahmed is senior law lecturer at Birmingham City University In a previous update I commented on the case of Noorani v Calver  EWHC 592 (QB). This case illustrated some of the factors which the courts are likely to take into account in assessing whether to award indemnity costs. In Noorani, Mr Justice Coulson considered two important elements of the dispute which he found to be relevant when awarding the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis. The first was the parties’ pre-trial conduct: the more unreasonable a party’s behaviour, the more likely it is that indemnity costs will be awarded against it. The second element was the nature of the claim. If it is evident from the circumstances of the case that the claim was fundamentally flawed from the outset, but that the claimant persisted with his claim, then this will justify a costs award being made on an indemnity basis (this would also be the position if the defence is found to be flawed). Coulson J recently revisited the issue of indemnity costs in D Morgan Plc v Mace & Jones (A Firm) (No. 3)  EWHC 26 (TCC) in which he considered other factors, aside from those set out in Noorani, which will determine the making of an order for indemnity costs. Factors justifying indemnity costs D Morgan Plc v Mace & Jones Appropriate test The facts can be stated briefly. The claimant brought a claim for professional negligence against the two defendants, Mace & Jones (MJ) and John Hoggett QC (JH). The claimant argued that both defendants had provided negligent planning advice to the claimant in respect of a quarry site in Cheshire and, as a result, it had suffered damages in excess of £40m. The claimant had accepted a part 36 offer from JH, but continued its claim against MJ. Coulson J subsequently dismissed four out of the five allegations of negligence made by the claimant against MJ and found that all arguments of causation had failed, as did the vast bulk of the claim for damages. The judge went on to deal with the issues of whether, among other things, MJ was entitled to indemnity costs. MJ argued that the following six matters justified an order for indemnity costs, in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4) and 44.4(1): (i) This was an exaggerated claim advanced on a fundamentally flawed basis; (ii) The case as to causation was also flawed; (iii) The claimant’s principal witness had given wholly unsatisfactory evidence which, among other things, involved a number of deliberate untruths; (iv) There had been a lack of proper disclosure by the claimant; (v) There had been dilatory conduct of the proceedings by the claimant; and (vi) A part 36 offer had been made by MJ in July 2010 in the sum of £1.2m (plus costs), and that offer had not been responded to, let alone accepted by, the claimant. As at the beginning of July 2010, Coulson J disagreed with points (i)-(iv) above. Those arguments did not justify an order for indemnity costs being made against the claimant. Furthermore, points (iv) and (v) were not of any real significance to the issue of the appropriate basis of costs assessment. The appropriate test for indemnity costs is set out in the case of Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm)  EWCA Civ. 879 in which the Court of Appeal reiterated that an order for indemnity costs could only be made where there was ‘some conduct or some circumstance which takes the case out of the norm’. These comments were made in the light of the appeal court case of Reid Minty (A Firm) v Taylor  2 All ER 150 and Kiam v MGN Ltd [No 2]  2 All ER 242. In Reid Minty, Lord Justice May stated that a claimant’s refusal of a defendant’s part 36 offer, which he subsequently failed to beat ‘may, subject to the court’s discretion, be determinative’ of his liability to pay indemnity costs. Furthermore, in Kiam, Lord Justice Simon Brown was of the opinion that unreasonable conduct ‘to a high degree’ was required for an order for indemnity costs. Coulson J went on to note that the circumstances of the case subsequently changed from July 2010 onwards which did justify the making of an order for indemnity costs. First, the claimant had accepted the sum of £2.6m from JH who was regarded by Coulson J as being primarily liable. Second, in late July 2010, MJ made a part 36 offer which expired in August 2010 which the claimant refused to accept. Coulson J found that this refusal to accept, when seen against the background of the real problems with maintaining the claim against MJ alone, was unreasonable ‘to a high degree’. He observed: ‘I therefore regard this case as very similar to the situation in Excelsior; while the refusal by DM of the part 36 offer, and their subsequent failure to beat it, could not on its own justify an order for indemnity costs, the refusal of the offer, when considered against the background of the speculative nature of the claim against Mace & Jones, does in my judgment warrant such a finding.’ Coulson J then turned to point (iii) above, which also justified the making of an order for indemnity costs. Coulson J found that the evidence given by the claimant’s principal witness was highly unreliable and that, on occasions, he had told deliberate untruths in order to strengthen the claimant’s case. The judge also made numerous criticisms of the detail of the evidence given. The judge held: ‘When the principal witness and owner of the unsuccessful claimant seeks to bolster his speculative claim in such an illegitimate way, his conduct is unreasonable to a high degree, and he inevitably lays the claimant open to the finding that the case was pursued outside any acceptable norm. ‘That is the finding that I make in this case.’ Both the failure to accept the part 36 offer and the wholly unreliable evidence given on behalf of the claimant justified, in the opinion of Coulson J, the making of an order for indemnity costs. Like Noorani, D Morgan Plc v Mace & Jones provides further valuable judicial guidance as to the factors which a court may take into account when deciding whether to award indemnity costs. The message from Noorani and Mace & Jones is clear – parties to litigation must act reasonably at all times (both pre-action and once proceedings have been issued). A failure by a party to do so who then later loses at trial may result in that party being punished with having to pay indemnity costs.
The government is reviewing criminal legal aid fees but does it fully grasp the predicament of embattled practitioners? And how does it stop juniors fleeing an impoverished sector for City riches?,This month the Ministry of Justice begins a ‘wide-ranging’ review of criminal legal aid fees. Justice minister Lucy Frazer QC announced the surprising, but welcome, news on the day the government laid down legislation to inject an extra £23m into its Crown court fee scheme for advocates. ‘We want to ensure that criminal defence remains a sustainable and attractive career, and that individuals continue to have access to justice,’ she said. Monidipa FouzderThe government’s acknowledgement that fees need to be reviewed is encouraging. The timetable for the review? Less so. The House of Commons justice select committee was told the final report, including recommendations, will not be published until the end of the summer… in 2020. How many criminal defence practitioners will still be standing in 18 months’ time? The Law Society’s warning that criminal duty solicitors are on their way to becoming extinct clearly has not fully sunk in with the Ministry of Justice, which told shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon that ‘there are sufficient solicitors to undertake criminal legal aid funded cases’. There is no guarantee the review will even be ready by summer 2020. ‘It is important to highlight that the ability to deliver against these dates would be dependent on the legal professions working with us to gather, build, provide and share qualitative and quantitative evidence, which must go far beyond the billing data we currently use,’ the government said. Ministers will need to clarify precisely what kind of evidence will serve to persuade ministers that criminal defence is a dying career. For instance, will the example criminal bar chief Chris Henley QC gave last week in his weekly update pass muster? He cited an experienced junior prosecutor paid £46.50 for hours of preparation work and a full day at court, which works out at roughly £5 an hour and does not include unpaid travel. The government told MPs ‘we believe it is the time to think more widely about the future of criminal legal aid’. If that is the case, its reforms must also be shaped by the wider picture. Students do not take the risk of considering criminal law because they have huge debt to pay backLaw Society criminal law roundtablePlenty of students still want to become criminal lawyers. Dr Hannah Bows, an assistant professor in criminal law at Durham University, recently conducted a survey asking students considering a career in law which areas of practice currently appeal. Criminal law was joint highest (the other was human rights law). However, while law students begin their journey with lofty ambitions to enter crime, their priorities change when they leave university saddled with huge debts – a problem discussed by attendees at a Law Society criminal law roundtable last month. One attendee said she worked with a student interested in criminal law but who went off instead to a large City firm paying £85,000 a year. ‘It’s the money draw for them. They’re coming out of university with £48,000 worth of debt. It’s not for lack of us telling students you should consider [criminal law] as an option. They just do not take that risk because they have huge debt to pay back.’ One attendee mooted the idea that the government could help students wanting to specialise in criminal law with training costs, just as it does for aspiring teachers and healthcare workers. Better remuneration might stop larger firms shutting down their criminal departments because, as the roundtable heard, ‘they can put people in those rooms who can earn three times more in revenue’ doing another area of law. Even though the government says it will share ‘emerging findings’ with the profession throughout the review process, in the meantime solicitors must do everything they can to ensure society is not deprived of a future generation of criminal law specialists. Hard as it is given the dire pay, that involves highlighting the immense job satisfaction which, based on the cases I have heard practitioners talk about, is hard to beat. Solicitor Ian Kelcey, co-chair of the Society’s Criminal Law Committee, told the roundtable that the ‘biggest buzz’ of his career was not a high-profile case, but helping a young man at a police station who was estranged from his family. ‘I sat down with him and said he needed to get in touch with his parents. After he spent 40 minutes talking it through, he agreed to let me contact them. His parents, of course, provided a lifeboat. ‘Four years later, he walked into my office with a baby girl and said “thank you”. That meant more to me than any high-profile case. I felt able to change his life positively.’
Fernando Torres delivered a scintillating solo performance to torment his old adversaries Real Madrid and send Liverpool into the Champions League quarter-finals.Torres, for so long the symbol of Real’s fierce rivals Atletico Madrid, returned from injury to spearhead a Liverpool display that once again re-inforced their credentials in Europe’s elite competition.Torres put Liverpool ahead after 16 minutes when he turned in Dirk Kuyt’s cross from close range – although Real complained bitterly that defender Pepe had been fouled in the build up.Real also felt they were harshly treated when Steven Gerrard scored Liverpool’s second from the spot 12 minutes later after Gabriel Heinze had been penalised for handball.The brutal truth for Real was that they were outclassed, with Liverpool underlining their vast superiority when Gerrard slammed home the third from Ryan Babel’s cross two minutes after the interval.Substitute Andrea Dossena completed a dream night for Liverpool by scoring his first goal for the club with two minutes remaining. Only a show of outstanding one-man defiance from Real keeper Iker Casillas stopped Liverpool from running riot even more in front of a delirious Anfield gallery.Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez demanded respect for his European record in the build-up to this tie, and it will be given after a performance that once again demonstrated that for all his inability to claim the Premier League so far in his Anfield reign, there are few finer operators in this form of football combat.Real coach Juande Ramos was wearing the look of dejected resignation that characterised much of his brief reign at Spurs long before the final whistle, with the Spanish champions looking one-paced and ageing in crucial areas thanks to the vibrant nature of Liverpool’s display.The brilliance of Torres was ably supported by Gerrard on his 100th European appearance for Liverpool as the pair delivered compelling evidence that they can be the driving forces for another assault on Rome, where Liverpool won this trophy in 1977 and 1984.Liverpool were able to recall Torres after the ankle injury he sustained in the first leg in the Bernabeu – and he was the focal point for a first-half display that put the tie firmly out of Real’s reach. If Real needed the impetus of an early goal to put Liverpool under pressure, they were not given a chance as they were subjected to a siege in the opening exchanges.Torres was almost untouchable, signalling his intentions in the third minute with a turn which left Fabio Cannavaro in his wake, but Casillas denied his Spanish international team-mate.And Casillas showed his class again from the resulting corner, leaping acrobatically to turn Javier Mascherano’s 20-yard drive on to the bar.Real were not being given any opportunity to fashion attacks or bring order to their play, and even though Liverpool’s opening goal in the 16th minute was hotly-contested by Ramos’ side, they could not complain at being behind.Pepe insisted that Torres had hauled him down as they chased a long ball, but Liverpool’s striker did not wait for the whistle, racing to the edge of the six-yard box to apply a simple finish to Kuyt’s cross. Liverpool were playing in the positive and fluent manner that has eluded them so often at Anfield this season, and Casillas was in action once more to save Martin Skrtel’s header.And Torres was at it again when he pulled the ball back from the touch-line for Gerrard, but Casillas, a shining light amid this fiasco of a performance from Real, was again equal to the occasion.Liverpool doubled their advantage after 28 minutes, but once again Real were left cursing the officials when Heinze was penalised for handball.The former Manchester United defender, who almost joined Liverpool, pointed to his shoulder, but it was all in vain as Gerrard powered home the penalty.It effectively ended the tie, although Real belatedly twitched into life as Liverpool keeper Pepe Reina was twice forced to save from Wesley Sneijder and Gonzalo Higuain. The only cloud on what was virtually a perfect opening period for Liverpool was a yellow card for Mascherano for kicking the ball away.Real made a change at the interval, replacing the subdued Arjen Robben with Marcelo – but any hopes of an unlikely revival were snuffed out when Gerrard added Liverpool’s third two minutes after the break.Babel is clearly not a favourite of Liverpool’s supporters, but they had no complaints when he escaped down the left flank and crossed invitingly for Gerrard to side-foot a crisp finish high past the unfortunate Casillas.Indeed, only the excellent Casillas stood between Real and a rout, saving superbly again from Gerrard as Liverpool displayed the freedom of a side that knew their ticket into the last eight of the Champions League was already stamped.When Real did pose a threat, which was hardly ever, Liverpool’s rearguard remained resolute on a night that offered little other than frustration for the legendary Raul and his colleagues. Torres’ night ended as it started, when he was denied by the diving Casillas, this time from a rising first-time effort.He was substituted to a standing ovation, but if Real thought that was the end of their punishment they were mistaken as the unlikely figure of Dossena arrived unchallenged in the area to turn the fourth past Casillas.Liverpool departed to rapturous applause at the final whistle – fully deserved after a performance that signalled a warning that they will once again be a serious force in the latter stages of the Champions League.Liverpool: Reina, Arbeloa, Skrtel, Carragher, Aurelio, Alonso (Lucas 60), Mascherano, Kuyt, Gerrard (Spearing 74), Babel, Torres (Dossena 83).Subs Not Used: Cavalieri, Hyypia, Ngog, Kelly.Booked: Gerrard, Mascherano, Dossena. Goals: Torres 16, Gerrard 28 pen, 47, Dossena 88.Real Madrid: Casillas, Sergio Ramos, Cannavaro (Van der Vaart 64), Pepe, Heinze, Robben (Marcelo 46), Lassana Diarra, Gago (Guti 77), Sneijder, Raul, Higuain.Subs Not Used: Dudek, Saviola, Metzelder, Miguel Torres.Booked: Pepe, Heinze, Marcelo.Att: 42,550Ref: Frank De Bleeckere (Belgium).Source: BBC
The Ravens weren’t the only team to run away with a lopsided win in Week 1.While Baltimore left Miami with a commanding 59-10 victory, the Titans paced themselves before exploding for 21 points in the fourth quarter to seal a 43-13 win and spoil arguably the most hyped regular-season opener for the Browns in years. Titans’ Delanie Walker: Browns are ‘who we thought they were’ Dolphins deny report players have requested trades after blowout Week 1 loss to Ravens — The 30-point loss is tied for the third-largest season-opening loss in Browns’ history, and the worst since a 43-0 loss to the Steelers to open the 1999 season. — Cleveland’s 18 penalties for 182 yards are the most for any team in a season opener since the NFL-AFL merger.— Beckham has now gone five consecutive games without getting 100 or more receiving yards, tied for the longest such drought of his career. But Cleveland couldn’t have made it easier by committing 18 penalties for 182 yards, which was the Browns’ most penalties in a game since 1951.It didn’t help that Browns wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr., the biggest transaction of the offseason, fell short of expectations as he finished with seven catches for 71 yards. Related News Baker Mayfield confident Browns ‘are going to bounce back’ after loss to Titans We pulled some numbers from Sunday’s game — with the help of our colleagues at Opta. (If you like what you see here, give @OptaJerry — the official Twitter page for Opta’s NFL and NCAA stats-driven football coverage — a follow on Twitter.)Here are five crazy stats from the Titans’ routing of the Browns — The Browns are now winless in their last 15 season openers (14L-1T), the longest streak in NFL history. No other team has dropped more than nine consecutive season openers. The next longest active streak is the Bears and Colts at six.— Baker Mayfield is the first Brown to throw 3 or more interceptions in a season opener since Brandon Weeden did so in 2013. Mayfield is the fourth Browns quarterback to throw 3 or more INTs in a Week 1 game.
Tigers host Ashwaubenon on ThursdayBy Paul LeckerSports ReporterMARSHFIELD — Unable to mount much of an offensive threat going into a stiff wind in the second half, the Marshfield boys soccer team dug in defensively to try to hold on to a slim lead.The Tigers were successful for a while, but a defensive foul in the goalie box proved to be a game changer.Kyle Palmberg drilled home a penalty kick at the 66:02 mark, and Braydon Kreibich scored just four minutes later to lift Holmen to a 3-2 win over Marshfield in the 2017 season opener for both teams on Tuesday at Griese Park.Quintin Olson scored at the 24:14 mark of the first half before Marshfield pulled in front.Marshfield freshman Elijah Hubler-Marti’s shot was initially blocked by Holmen goalie Jackson Lutz, but when Lutz attempted to corral the ball, it slipped through his fingers and into the net for an own goal that tied the game at 1-1 at the 29:06 mark.Just 2:14 later, Hubler-Marti scored on a penalty kick to put the Tigers up 2-1, and that lead held for the next 35 minutes.Marshfield was unable to put a solid shot on goal in the second half, and eventually Holmen was able to take control and find a way to pull out the victory.“Some positive stuff out there,” Marshfield coach Steve McCann said. “I think there were some good runs. The attacking with some of our forwards, we just weren’t getting the ball to them. We had some simple passes available, and we weren’t making the passes, and overall our traps were poor. Lots of stuff to work on, but some potential.”At times, Marshfield had as many as six freshmen and sophomores on the field at once. McCann knows the team will go through growing pains early in the season, but likes what he sees so far.“We had freshmen out there, sophomores out running around, just a ton of potential,” McCann said. “I like their energy in practice and the stuff they’re bringing to the table. I have bright hopes for the season, but this was our contest at a varsity speed.”Marshfield hosts Ashwaubenon on at 5 p.m. Thursday at Griese Park.(Hub City Times Sports Reporter Paul Lecker is also the publisher of MarshfieldAreaSports.com.)Vikings 3, Tigers 2Holmen 1 2 – 3Marshfield 2 0 – 2First half: 1. H, Quintin Olson (Evan Espelien), 24:14; 2. M, Holmen own goal, 29:06; 3. M, Elijah Hubler-Marti (penalty kick), 31:20.Second half: 4. H, Kyle Palmberg (penalty kick), 66:02; 5. H, Braydon Kreibich, 70:41.Shots on goal: Holmen 10; Marshfield 6.Saves: H, Jackson Lutz 5; M, Matt Pahl 8.Corner kicks: Holmen 1; Marshfield 5.Records: Holmen 1-0; Marshfield 0-1.
As we travel down our loss prevention career path we learn that the road to professional success requires a wide spectrum of skills and experience far beyond those that we carried when we first entered the field. But in order to secure the best loss prevention jobs to fit our skills and abilities, it also demands the capability to effectively communicate our talents to the decision makers that hold the means to propel our careers to the next level. Without question this is an essential skill set that commands our understanding and attention regardless of whether we are exploring career options within our own company or seeking opportunities beyond our current employer.Putting your best foot forward in the interview process is a critical aspect of a successful job search. But even more importantly, it can have a long-term impact on your loss prevention career in general. These impressions can have a lasting effect on how you are perceived as a professional as well as how you approach your career development plan. Whether the information serves as a reminder or a revelation, the most important objective should be to make a strong and lasting impression when exploring new career opportunities. Let’s take a closer look at how we should approach the interview:Use Preparation to Set Yourself Apart from Other CandidatesAs part of a healthy and productive job search most organizations will identify multiple candidates in order to thoroughly and objectively explore the available candidate pool. Once the pool is identified the field is typically narrowed to a few select candidates that the company feels will best represent their specific needs and interests. Interviews are then conducted to identify and secure the best possible individual to fill the role. Multiple interviews may take place with the final candidates to validate the best match for the position.- Sponsor – During the interview process we want to take the steps to ensure that we set ourselves apart from any other candidates that might be interviewing, and in the process we want to make sure that we set the bar high. Make others see that you are the right choice. There are three primary areas where we can prepare for this prior to the interview:• Perception – Having a good feel for the company and what they’re looking for in a candidate. Do the homework. Whenever possible, speak to peers and others familiar with the company. Visit the company’s corporate website. Learn the company’s mission and vision. Learn their history. Get a feel for the company culture, and how they approach their business. Learn as much as you can about the program, and how they approach the job. Speak with mentors and others that can help you better understand the position that you are looking at. Explore the match. Understand the opportunities and challenges. Learn the possibilities, and how they might help you grow as a professional. All of this helps set the tone for the interview.• Perspective – Put yourself in the shoes of the interviewer: “If I were the interviewer, what kind of questions would I be asking me?” Ask yourself tough questions that go beyond the routine: Why should I pick you over someone else? What value can you bring to the position and to the organization? Look at what you’ve learned through your research, play the role of the decision maker, and force yourself to step up.• Attention to Details – The little things can make a difference. Interviewers will pay attention to the way you approach the details, and translate that information into the way that you approach the job. For example, there are various websites available that can provide detailed financial information on the organization (if publically traded), review recent company-related headlines and news, offer detailed company profiles, and present a host of other relevant business information. Use that information wisely, and make an impression.Preparation is critical to the interview process. It helps us get the information right, but it also does much more than that. Preparation builds confidence, and that confidence can be felt throughout the interview. It comes through in the tone of our voice. It helps us to relax. It helps the conversation to flow better and more freely.A Winning Approach Starts with a Winning AttitudeA job interview provides a means to open a window into who we are—as a professional, as a leader, as a partner, and as a person. We are given precious minutes to summarize our value and our character; and make a positive and lasting impression on those having offered us the opportunity. This is a platform, and not a guarantee that others will see us for who we are. It is up to us to open the window and share the picture.But an interview is also something more. It is a search for a match, and a chance to take our skills and abilities to another level. It is a means to build upon our career, and find a home that not only meets our needs, but helps reveal our future. Unfortunately, it is also a skill that many take for granted. It’s simply not enough to be good at what we do. We also have to be able to share that information with others, and offer the best possible picture of who we are so that we continue to move forward down a successful and rewarding loss prevention career path. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now
Watch Serie A live in the UK on Premier Sports for just £11.99 per month including live LaLiga, Eredivisie, Scottish Cup Football and more. Visit: https://subscribe.premiersports.tv/ Former Juventus player Patrick Vieira insisted it’s important to understand “why Cristiano Ronaldo is unhappy” at the Allianz Stadium. “There will be some frustration.” Ronaldo left the stadium in anger after being substituted during the 1-0 win over Milan on Sunday and the Nice coach warned Juventus need to sort it out quickly. “This shows how difficult it is to be a coach,” Vieira told Sky Sport Italia. “Ronaldo is of different class, together with [Lionel] Messi and Neymar, they are the image of football today.” Ronaldo responded with a short message on Instagram yesterday and coach Maurizio Sarri defended the player during the press conference after the game. “It’s important to understand why he is unhappy,” added the French World Cup winner. “From the outside, it seems like he is going through a difficult period. When a player like him stops scoring, there will be some frustration.” Paulo Dybala came on for Ronaldo during the second half against the Rossoneri, and eventually he decided the game for the Bianconeri, scoring the only goal. “I am not surprised to see Juventus always in first place, as here the player is at the service of the club and when things are clear, the player can give his best on the field. “At Juventus, the club is the real star.”
In his third year of eligibility, former Reds shortstop Barry Larkin was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame on Monday. Larkin, who is the only player elected to the Hall of Fame this year, received 86.4 percent of the vote from the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. A player needs at least 75 percent of the vote in order to be inducted. Larkin spent his entire major league career with the Cincinnati Reds from 1986-2004. In that time, he batted .295 and tallied 198 home runs, 960 RBIs, 2,340 hits and 379 stolen bases. Only Pete Rose has more hits in a Reds uniform. Larkin also won three Gold Gloves, the National League MVP award in 1995 and was a member of 1990 World Series team that swept the Oakland Athletics. Larkin’s nine Silver Slugger Awards, given to the best offensive player in both leagues at each position, is second-most all-time by an infielder behind only Alex Rodriguez, currently of the New York Yankees. The 47-year-old Larkin is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio, and attended the University of Michigan, where his No. 16 was retired in 2010. Larkin was also recruited by legendary Michigan coach Bo Schembechler to play football for the Wolverines. Larkin was redshirted his freshman year and thereafter decided to devote all of his time to baseball. It appears Larkin might have made the right choice. Larkin will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., on July 22.