One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.3K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- WHERE THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 4: NOT-SERVING PROPERLY; OBTAINING DEFAULT JUDGEMENT INCORRECTLY AND SUING A PARTY WRONGLY: A LOT OF LESSONS HERE
- SERVICE POINTS 48 : A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST ACTION (AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NEVER SERVED) LEADS TO A SECOND ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY (2): A SERIES OF CHECKLISTS TO HELP YOU WITH DRAFTING STATEMENTS FOR “CORPORATE” CLIENTS: THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN A WITNESS STATEMENT WHEN THERE IS A CORPORATE CLIENT: PROBLEMS KEEP OCCURRING
- COST BITES 409: A PART 36 CASE TO FINISH OFF THE WEEK: CLAIM £8.4 MILLION GET £102,000 (HAVING TURNED DOWN AN OFFER OF £3.175 MILLION): IT IS NOT “UNJUST” FOR THE CLAIMANT TO FACE TO NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES, NOR WOULD THE COURT “PICK AND CHOOSE” IN RELATION TO THE COSTS PAYABLE
Top Posts
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
I have seen leading QC’s interupting each other indeed chairmen of t;he Bar. Not only is it obstructive to justice being done it is most undedifying.