Request a callback

If you want to discuss a particular service or need help, call us on 02476 231000.

Why Strong Commercial Litigation Claims Can Still Lose

Article summary:

  • Procedural failures, poor evidence management, and conduct issues can undermine even the strongest case.
  • Pre-action protocol failures can lead to costs and consequences that follow a claimant or defendant throughout proceedings.
  • Witness credibility, including demeanour under cross-examination and consistency with documentary evidence, can be decisive in commercial litigation claims.
  • Exaggerating a claim, whether deliberately or through careless evidence gathering, can destroy credibility on the parts that are entirely legitimate.
  • Litigation conduct, including failure to comply with court directions and unreasonable refusal to negotiate, carries direct financial consequences.
  • The gap between having a strong legal position and being able to prove it, compliantly and persuasively, is where litigation is often won and lost.

Even the strongest business civil litigation claims, whether in relation to contract disputes, debt recovery, property disputes, insolvency disputes, professional negligence, or defamation, can fail for reasons such as poor evidence, procedural failures, unconvincing witnesses, exaggerated losses, and poor conduct during proceedings. This is because the courts do not simply decide who is in the right. Rather, they decide who has presented their position most credibly, most compliantly, and most persuasively within a framework of strict procedural rules. Falling short of that standard, even in ways that seem minor, can be the difference between the outcome a client deserves and the one they actually receive. In this article, we will look at why some commercial litigation claims fail despite being strong.

1. A weak case that does not stand up to scrutiny

During commercial civil litigation cases, the courts make their decision based on:

  • Who has satisfied the relevant legal test on the balance of probabilities
  • Whether admissible evidence was presented in an organised and credible way
  • The case met with the procedural rules, and
  • The weight and relevance of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties

You can expect the other side to probe every weakness, challenge every assumption, and test every witness. A claim that looks strong on paper, supported by a detailed chronology and sympathetic facts, can fall apart once scrutinised by a competent opponent. As such, the question is not only whether the claim is valid in law, but also whether it can withstand the rigour of proceedings.

Many clients reach out to a commercial litigation Solicitor after months or years of correspondence, negotiation, and frustration. By that point, they have formed a rather fixed view of events, one that is not always consistent with how the documentary record reads to an impartial observer. Litigation discipline requires a willingness to examine your own case as critically as the court will, identifying its weaknesses before the other side does, and addressing them directly rather than hoping the strength of the core claim carries everything.

2. Not adhering to the pre-action protocol

Before most civil claims can be issued, claimants are expected to follow the relevant Civil Procedure Rules pre-action protocol. These protocols, which exist for commercial disputes, professional negligence, debt recovery, and many other claim types, require parties to exchange information, set out their positions clearly, and attempt resolution before turning to the courts. The Civil Procedure Rules underpin all of this, and courts take compliance seriously.

Failure to follow a protocol does not prevent proceedings from being issued. What it does is create risk. Courts have discretion to impose costs sanctions on parties who have not engaged properly at the pre-action stage, regardless of the outcome of the claim itself. A claimant who issues proceedings without sending the required letter before action, or who refuses to consider alternative dispute resolution before litigating, may find that even a successful outcome is accompanied by an adverse costs order covering the early conduct failures.

The letter before action serves a genuine legal function, putting the defendant on notice of the claim, identifying the legal basis, specifying the remedy sought, and providing a reasonable period to respond. Courts look carefully at these letters and the responses to them. A letter that is vague, aggressive without substance, or fails to engage with the defendant’s position can signal to a court that the claimant approached litigation before attempting genuine resolution.

Pre-action protocols also require parties to consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation. Since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in 2023, the courts have confirmed their power to put proceedings on hold while parties engage in ADR. A claimant who refuses to consider mediation before trial exposes themselves to high costs and consequences, whatever the outcome of the litigation.

3. Non-credible witnesses

Financial records, emails, contracts, invoices, and correspondence are vital for successful commercial claims. Courts must also assess witness evidence, and the assessment of witness credibility happens in real time, in the witness box, under cross-examination by experienced advocates. Judges are experienced in evaluating witnesses. They look for consistency between oral evidence and the documents. They notice hesitation, evasion, and overconfidence. They observe whether a witness can acknowledge the parts of the case that do not support them, or whether they present a version of events so uniformly favourable that it defies credibility. A witness who cannot concede anything, who has an explanation for every difficulty, and who treats cross-examination as a performance rather than an exercise in truth-telling tends not to help their case.

Witness statements require careful preparation. They must be honest, drafted in the witness’s own words rather than the solicitor’s, and confined to matters within the witness’s personal knowledge. Statements that read as advocacy, that speculate about the other side’s motives, or that stray into legal argument rather than fact, are usually less effective than concise accounts of what the witness personally saw, heard, or did.

Memory is also less reliable than most people believe. Events that occurred several years before trial, which is not uncommon in complex litigation, are difficult to recall with precision. The temptation to fill gaps in memory with inference, assumptions, or what must have happened can produce witness evidence that contradicts the contemporaneous documents, and once a witness’s reliability is in question on one point, the damage extends to their account as a whole.

4. Exaggerated claims

Exaggeration in commercial litigation is more common than most practitioners care to acknowledge. It rarely takes the form of deliberate dishonesty. More often, it arrives through a gradual process of advocacy, with each retelling of events becoming slightly more favourable, losses described with less qualification, and the conduct of the other side characterised in terms that serve the claim rather than reflect the evidence.

The consequences of exaggeration are severe and extend well beyond the exaggerated element itself. Where a court finds that a claimant has overstated their losses, whether in relation to quantum, causation, or the nature of the breach itself, it is entitled to approach the entire claim with scepticism. A finding that the claimant has been unreliable on one issue invites the court to question their reliability on others. Parts of the claim that were entirely legitimate become tainted by association.

This problem is particularly acute in claims where expert evidence on quantum is required. Forensic accountants, medical experts, and other specialists can identify where losses have been attributed to the defendant’s conduct that would have arisen in any event, or where recovery timelines have been presented optimistically. A report from a claimant’s own expert that is undermined by the defendant’s expert on key figures is difficult to recover from, particularly where the court perceives that the original figures were adopted without sufficient scrutiny.

Litigation discipline requires claimants to interrogate their own numbers honestly. If a business suffered losses during the relevant period, but trading had already been declining for unrelated reasons, the honest assessment of recoverable loss is considerably lower than the headline reduction in turnover. Courts appreciate the distinction between what was caused by the defendant’s breach and what would have happened anyway. Presenting inflated figures and inviting the court to work backwards invites exactly the kind of judicial scepticism that credible claimants work hard to avoid.

5. Poor conduct during litigation proceedings

Litigation conduct is assessed throughout proceedings, not only at trial. Courts operating under the Civil Procedure Rules are case management courts, actively involved in managing the progress of claims to ensure proportionate, efficient resolution. Parties who fail to engage with that process, who miss directions deadlines, who file incomplete or late evidence, or who refuse to comply with orders, face consequences that go beyond adverse findings on the issues.

The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. But the court has wide discretion to depart from this rule where conduct warrants it. A claimant who succeeds on liability but is found to have conducted proceedings unreasonably may recover less than their full costs, or may face orders to pay part of the defendant’s costs on issues that were pursued unnecessarily or disproportionately.

Part 36 offers introduce an additional layer of costs risk. If a defendant makes a formal Part 36 offer to settle, and the claimant proceeds to trial and fails to beat that offer, the costs consequences are significant. The claimant must pay the defendant’s costs from the date the offer should have been accepted, together with interest. This reversal of the usual costs position can transform a technical win at trial into a financial outcome that is worse than accepting the offer would have been.

The obligation to comply with court orders is absolute. Missing a single deadline without promptly applying for an extension, and providing good reasons for it, can result in evidence being excluded, claims being struck out, or sanctions that are disproportionate to the original failure but entirely within the court’s discretion to impose. The Court of Appeal’s guidance in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers and subsequent cases has made clear that courts will enforce compliance with the Rules and their own orders, and that last-minute applications to remedy failures rarely receive a sympathetic reception.

For defendants, the same principles apply in reverse. Failing to file a defence in time, ignoring requests for documents under the directions process, or refusing to engage meaningfully with settlement discussions can all generate costs consequences that exceed the savings made by delaying or obstructing the proceedings.

6. Lack of proper disclosure

Disclosure is the process by which parties exchange documents that are relevant to the issues in the case. In the Business and Property Courts, disclosure is governed by the Disclosure Pilot Scheme and its successor provisions, which require parties to undertake a structured and proportionate search for relevant documents and to disclose both those that assist their case and those that do not.

The obligation of disclosure extends to documents that harm your own position. This is not optional. A party that becomes aware of a document undermining their case is not permitted to withhold or destroy it. While deliberate suppression can ultimately constitute contempt of court, the immediate consequences are more likely to be the issuance of an ‘adverse inference’ (effectively assuming the missing evidence was damaging to your case), or an ‘unless order’ that can lead to the entire claim being struck out.

Final words

Courts decide cases on evidence, procedure, and conduct. They do not reward moral certainty, nor do they penalise a party for having a complex claim, provided it is presented honestly, managed proportionately, and advanced in accordance with the Rules. Those who approach litigation with that understanding, who interrogate their own case as carefully as they interrogate the other side’s, who meet deadlines and engage with settlement as a legitimate outcome rather than a defeat, are more likely to reach a positive outcome.

FAQs

What happens if I fail to follow the pre-action protocol before issuing proceedings?

Courts expect parties to comply with the relevant pre-action protocol before litigation begins. If you have not done so, you should take immediate steps to remedy the failure, ideally by sending a compliant letter before action and allowing a reasonable response period before taking any further steps. If proceedings have already been issued without protocol compliance, a court may stay those proceedings to allow the protocol process to be completed, and is likely to consider the failure when making costs orders at the conclusion of the claim. The fact that your underlying claim is strong does not immunise you from costs and consequences arising from conduct failures at the outset.

Can my compensation be reduced because I exaggerated part of my claim?

Yes, the courts assess each element of a claim separately and will award only the losses that have been properly proved on the evidence. If part of your claim is found to be overstated, the court will simply award less on that element. The more significant risk is the effect on your credibility more broadly. Where a judge concludes that a claimant has been unreliable or dishonest in presenting one aspect of their case, that finding tends to colour how the remaining evidence is assessed. In cases where exaggeration appears deliberate, courts also have the power to make adverse costs orders that go beyond reducing the award itself.

How important is witness evidence compared to documentary evidence?

Both matter, and the relationship between them is critical. Documents created at the time events occurred carry considerable evidential weight, particularly in commercial disputes. Where witness evidence is consistent with the contemporaneous documents, it reinforces the credibility of the overall account. Where witness evidence conflicts with documents, courts will generally prefer the documents. This does not mean witness evidence is unimportant, particularly on matters of intent, knowledge, and the context in which events occurred. What it does mean is that witnesses must be prepared to engage with the documentary record honestly and cannot simply assert a version of events that the documents do not support.

What does unreasonable litigation conduct actually mean in practice?

Conduct that courts have found unreasonable includes refusing to engage in mediation or alternative dispute resolution without good reason, failing to comply with court directions or case management orders, pursuing allegations that have no realistic prospect of success, making or refusing settlement offers in ways that are clearly disproportionate, and filing evidence that is poorly prepared, duplicative, or not confined to the relevant issues. Unreasonable conduct does not require bad faith. A party that mismanages their case through disorganisation, excessive volume of evidence, or disproportionate pursuit of secondary issues can face costs consequences even where their underlying position is meritorious. Courts have broad discretion in this area and exercise it with increasing readiness.

Can I recover my legal costs if I win my case?

Generally, yes, subject to the court’s discretion. The usual starting point is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. However, the final costs order will reflect how each party has conducted the proceedings, whether pre-action protocols were followed, whether reasonable offers were made and rejected, and whether any issues were pursued disproportionately. In practice, successful parties in commercial litigation typically recover between 60 and 75% of their actual legal costs after detailed assessment, though this varies significantly. Part 36 offers can improve this outcome substantially where they are well-timed and where the claimant’s final award exceeds the terms of the offer.

To talk to our Litigation Solicitors in Coventry and Warwickshire, please call us on 02476 231000 or email enquiries@askewslegal.co

Please note that this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.